DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

(CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

(PAGES 19306 THROUGH 19360, VOLUME 109A, TRANSCRIBED AND SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. THE DEFENDANT IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK, MR. DARDEN AND MISS LEWIS. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. COUNSEL, IS THERE ANYTHING WE NEED TO DISCUSS BEFORE WE RESUME WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER?

MR. BAILEY: I HOPE YOUR GREETING "GOOD AFTERNOON" WAS NOT ON COMMENT ON MY BEING FIVE MINUTES LATE?

THE COURT: NO, IT WASN'T. DID I SAY THAT?

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, GOOD MORNING -- YESTERDAY -- I'M SORRY -- FRIDAY AFTERNOON -- WEEKENDS PASS SO QUICKLY -- FRIDAY AFTERNOON, FOLLOWING WHAT I BELIEVE WAS AN IN CAMERA HEARING WITH THE COURT BY THE DEFENSE, WE RECEIVED A PACKAGE OF DISCOVERY MATERIALS. THIS MORNING I RECEIVED FROM MR. BLASIER A FEW ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY MATERIALS. THERE IS A NOTEWORTHY ABSENCE FROM THESE MATERIALS WE RECEIVED; THE NOTES OF OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING AND SO FORTH FROM THE DEFENSE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EXPERT, DR. LENORE WALKER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I THOUGHT THAT THEY HAD COMMUNICATED WITH YOU IN THEIR DISCUSSIONS THAT SOME OF THE MATTERS THAT -- MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT DR. WALKER WAS OUT OF THE OFFICE AND WOULD BE FAXING THE MATTERS TO COUNSEL THIS MORNING AND THEY ANTICIPATED COMPLYING WITH THOSE MATTERS TODAY OR TOMORROW WAS MY RECOLLECTION.

MS. LEWIS: THAT WAS NOT EXACTLY THE WAY THAT MY DISCUSSION WITH MR. BLASIER -- THAT IS NOT EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TOLD.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, COUNSEL THIS IS A DISCOVERY MATTER THAT WE WILL TAKE UP AT OUR THREE O'CLOCK CALENDAR.

MS. LEWIS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: REMIND ME TO DO THAT AFTER WE DO THE DNA MATTERS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE WITH REGARD TO THE JURY MATTERS THAT WE CAN TAKE UP? ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURY. (BRIEF PAUSE.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE NOW BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE.

THE WITNESS: YES, YOUR HONOR.

PHILIP VANNATTER, THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE EVENING ADJOURNMENT, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, DETECTIVE.

THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. MR. DARDEN, GOOD MORNING, SIR.

MR. DARDEN: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: YOU MAY RESUME WITH YOUR DIRECT EXAMINATION.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WHEN WE LEFT OFF LAST FRIDAY YOU DESCRIBED FOR US THE TRAIL OF BLOOD THAT LED YOU TO THE DEFENDANT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. AND YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT YOU BELIEVED THAT YOU HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST THE DEFENDANT ON JUNE 13TH; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: OKAY.

A: AND THIS TERM "PROBABLE CAUSE," WHAT DOES THAT TERM MEAN? HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE IT?

A: PROBABLE CAUSE IS A STRONG AND HONEST SUSPICION THAT WOULD LEAD A REASONABLE PERSON TO BELIEVE THAT THE SUSPECT IS INVOLVED IN THE CRIME THAT YOU ARE INVESTIGATING.

Q: OKAY. AND YOU HARBORED SUCH A STRONG AND HONEST SUSPICION THAT DAY?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: OKAY. BUT YOU ALSO TOLD US LAST WEEK THAT YOU FELT THAT YOU NEEDED MORE BEFORE YOU COULD PRESENT THE CASE TO THE D.A.'S OFFICE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I WANTED MORE, YES.

Q: AND WHY? WHY IS THAT?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: KNOWING THE FILING POLICY OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THEY WANT MORE THAN PROBABLE CAUSE. THEY WANT EVIDENCE THAT WILL LEAD TO A CONVICTION, WHICH IS MUCH FARTHER THAN PROBABLE CAUSE EVIDENCE.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: YOU DID NOT PRESENT THE CASE TO THE D.A.'S OFFICE ON JUNE 13TH?

A: NO, SIR, I DIDN'T.

Q: AND WHEN WAS THE CASE FINALLY PRESENTED TO THE D.A.'S OFFICE?

A: JUNE THE 17TH.

Q: HOW MANY ITEMS OF EVIDENCE, OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, THAT IS, WERE COLLECTED IN THIS CASE?

THE COURT: AT WHAT POINT, COUNSEL?

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: AT ANY POINT TOTAL, HOW MANY ITEMS OF EVIDENCE?

A: I BELIEVE THERE IS APPROXIMATELY 450 ITEMS OF EVIDENCE.

Q: OKAY.

A: I BELIEVE THAT THAT IS A CLOSE NUMBER.

Q: OKAY. AND EACH OF THESE ITEMS, WERE THEY COLLECTED ALL DURING THE FIRST WEEK AFTER THE MURDERS?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: WHEN WERE THEY ALL COLLECTED?

A: THEY HAVE BEEN COLLECTED DURING THE ENTIRE TIME THAT THE -- THAT WE FIRST RECEIVED THE CASE.

MR. DARDEN: COULD I HAVE ONE MOMENT?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MR. DARDEN: MAY I PUT 123 ON THE ELMO, PLEASE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. 123.

Q: DETECTIVE, SHOWING WHAT YOU HAS BEEN MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 123 -- MAY THE RECORD REFLECT THAT MR. FAIRTLOUGH IS FOCUSING THE ELMO ON THE DEFENDANT'S FINGER --

THE COURT: YES.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: -- IN PARTICULAR. IS THAT THE WAY THE INJURY LOOKED TO YOU WHEN YOU FIRST SAW IT ON JUNE 13?

A: YES.

Q: WAS IT BLEEDING?

A: IT APPEARED TO HAVE DRIED BLOOD AROUND THE EDGES OF THE WOUND AND IT APPEARED TO BE SEEPING FLUID, NOT -- NOT BLOOD AT THAT POINT.

Q: OKAY. IT WASN'T DRIPPING BLOOD AT THAT POINT?

A: NO.

Q: AND WHAT TIME OF THE DAY WAS IT THAT YOU TOOK THIS PHOTOGRAPH?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: OR HAD IT TAKEN, RATHER?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS BETWEEN 2:00 AND 2:30 IN THE AFTERNOON.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU ALSO TOLD US THAT YOU TOOK OR HAD A NURSE TAKE A SAMPLE OF THE DEFENDANT'S BLOOD; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. WHAT TIME OF THE AFTERNOON WAS THAT SAMPLE TAKEN?

A: THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AFTER THREE O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON, I BELIEVE.

Q: WHERE WAS THE DEFENDANT WHEN THE BLOOD SAMPLE WAS TAKEN?

A: HE WAS IN THE DISPENSARY SECTION OF THE JAIL DIVISION.

Q: OKAY. AND THE JAIL DIVISION IS LOCATED OVER HERE ON LOS ANGELES STREET IN DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THE BLOOD SAMPLE, IF ANYTHING, AFTER IT WAS TAKEN?

A: I MAINTAINED CUSTODY OF THE BLOOD SAMPLE AND TURNED IT OVER TO THE CRIMINALIST.

Q: OKAY. AND WHERE WAS THE CRIMINALIST WHEN YOU TURNED IT OVER TO HIM?

A: HE WAS AT ROCKINGHAM FINISHING -- FINISHING THE WORK THERE WITH THE SEARCH WARRANT.

Q: AND SO IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY THEN, DETECTIVE, YOU TOOK THE DEFENDANT'S BLOOD SAMPLE OUT TO ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES.

Q: WHY DID YOU TAKE THE SAMPLE TO ROCKINGHAM?

A: WELL, I COULDN'T BOOK IT AT THAT POINT. I DIDN'T HAVE ANY ITEM NUMBER, I DIDN'T HAVE A DR NUMBER. I KNEW THAT THE CRIMINALIST WAS AT ROCKINGHAM AND AS SOON AS THE CRIMINALIST TAKES CUSTODY OF THE EVIDENCE ITEM, ESSENTIALLY I CONSIDER THAT BOOKED. I KNEW HE WAS THERE. I HAND CARRIED IT TO HIM FOR THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND TO PROTECT THAT PIECE OF EVIDENCE.

Q: OKAY. NOW, YOU HAVE USED THREE TERMS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS WITH YOU NOW, DETECTIVE. FIRST OF ALL, WHAT IS CHAIN OF CUSTODY?

A: CHAIN OF CUSTODY IS TO ENSURE THAT -- THAT AT ALL TIMES WE KNOW WHO HAS CONTROL OF THE EVIDENCE TO MAINTAIN THAT CONTROL OF THE EVIDENCE TO KNOW WHERE IT IS GOING AND WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO IT.

Q: OKAY. WELL, IS IT WISE TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF PERSONS THAT -- THAT TAKE CONTROL OR POSSESSION OF EVIDENCE?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHAT BENEFIT IS THERE IN LIMITING THE NUMBER OF PERSONS TO HAVE MAINTAINED THE CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF A PARTICULAR PIECE OF EVIDENCE?

A: THE BENEFIT IN LIMITING IS TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THAT PIECE OF EVIDENCE.

Q: OKAY. COULD YOU HAVE BOOKED THE EVIDENCE AT PARKER CENTER?

A: I COULD HAVE BOOKED IT, BUT I DIDN'T HAVE -- AGAIN, I DIDN'T HAVE A DR NUMBER, I DIDN'T HAVE AN ITEM NUMBER, AND IF I WOULD HAVE DONE THAT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SETTING THERE WITH NO CONTROL OVER IT. THAT IS WHY I CONTROLLED IT AND CARRIED IT TO THE CRIMINALIST.

Q: OKAY. WHAT IS A DR NUMBER, DETECTIVE?

A: A DR NUMBER IS A DIVISION OF RECORDS NUMBER THAT IS ISSUED TO ALL CRIMES. EACH CRIME HAS AN INDIVIDUAL NUMBER.

Q: YOU MEAN IT IS A FILE NUMBER?

A: THAT IS A FILE NUMBER THAT IDENTIFIES THAT INCIDENT, YES.

Q: OKAY. DOES THE SIMPSON INVESTIGATION HAVE A FILE NUMBER OR DR NUMBER.

MR. SHAPIRO: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. ARE WE DONE WITH THE PHOTOGRAPH?

THE COURT: I ASSUME SO.

MR. SHAPIRO: MAY THAT BE TAKEN DOWN, PLEASE?

THE COURT: YES.

Q: DOES THE SIMPSON INVESTIGATION HAVE A DR NUMBER OR A FILE NUMBER?

A: THE SIMPSON INVESTIGATION ACTUALLY HAS TWO; ONE FOR EACH VICTIM.

Q: OKAY. AND WHEN WERE THOSE NUMBERS OBTAINED, IF YOU KNOW?

A: YEAH, I DO KNOW. I BOUGHT THOSE NUMBERS MYSELF THE -- I BELIEVE THE 15TH OF JUNE.

Q: OKAY. YOU OBTAINED THE FILE NUMBER IN THIS CASE ON JUNE 15TH?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS -- IT WAS EITHER THE 14TH OR THE 15TH.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO OBJECT. THE QUESTION WAS COMPOUND AND NOW -- OBJECTION.

THE COURT: WHAT IS THE GROUND?

MR. SHAPIRO: COMPOUND.

THE COURT: COMPOUND? OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: AND WHERE WAS THE CRIMINALIST WHEN YOU GAVE HIM THE BLOOD SAMPLE AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: STANDING RIGHT INSIDE THE FRONT DOOR. HE WAS PREPARED TO LEAVE.

Q: OKAY. HAD THE BLOOD DROPS AND THE OTHER EVIDENCE THAT YOU DESCRIBED FOR US EARLIER BEEN COLLECTED AT THAT POINT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE GLOVE, THE GLOVE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN SHOWED YOU EARLIER THAT MORNING, HAD THAT BEEN COLLECTED?

A: YES.

Q: HAD THE BRONCO BEEN IMPOUNDED AT THAT POINT?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT THE BRONCO WAS STILL AT THE SCENE WHEN YOU ARRIVED BACK AT ROCKINGHAM WITH THE DEFENDANT'S BLOOD SAMPLE?

A: THE BRONCO WAS NOT THERE.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE COPIED A CLOSE-UP PHOTOGRAPH OF THE DEPICTION JUST SHOWN THE JURY OF THE DEFENDANT'S FINGER.

THE COURT: 123-A.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU.

MR. DOUGLAS: I THINK B, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: B. MRS. ROBERTSON SAYS A.

MS. CLARK: A IT IS.

THE COURT: A IT IS.

(PEO'S 123-A FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID YOU EVER LOCATE AN EXTRA SET OF KEYS TO THE BRONCO?

A: NO.

Q: YOU TOLD US FRIDAY THAT YOU -- THAT YOU HAD A KEY TO THE HANDCUFFS THAT OFFICER THOMPSON PLACED ON THE DEFENDANT; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU GIVE OFFICER THOMPSON YOUR HANDCUFFS SO THAT HE COULD HANDCUFF THE DEFENDANT?

A: NO.

Q: WELL, HOW IS IT THEN THAT YOU HAD IN YOUR POSSESSION A KEY TO THE HANDCUFFS?

A: HANDCUFFS USED BY THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT HAVE A UNIVERSAL KEY THAT EVERY OFFICER HAS A KEY TO THOSE HANDCUFFS.

Q: SO YOUR KEY WILL FIT --

A: ANY OTHER OFFICER'S HANDCUFFS.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY. YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE A VIDEOTAPE OF THE DEFENDANT HANDCUFFED ON JUNE 13, 1994. WE HAVE SHOWN IT TO DEFENSE COUNSEL. I DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE MARKED IT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THIS IS THE VIDEOTAPE THAT WE VIEWED PREVIOUSLY?

MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IS THE MATTER SUBMITTED, MR. SHAPIRO?

MR. SHAPIRO: WITHOUT ANY AUDIO, SUBMITTED.

MR. DARDEN: SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR MR. SHAPIRO.

THE COURT: AUDIO, WITHOUT SOUND.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

THE COURT: AND HAVE WE MARKED THIS VIDEOTAPE AS AN EXHIBIT? MRS. ROBERTSON INDICATES NO.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PEOPLE'S 124, VIDEOTAPE.

(PEO'S 124 FOR ID = VIDEOTAPE)

THE COURT: PROCEED.

(AT 9:31 A.M., PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT 124, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.)

MR. DARDEN: GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: NOW, DETECTIVE, WHEN YOU TESTIFIED FRIDAY, YOU TOLD US THAT YOU ASKED OFFICER THOMPSON TO DO SOMETHING; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID YOU ASK HIM TO DO?

A: I ASKED HIM IF -- TO DETAIN MR. SIMPSON AT THE FRONT GATE IF HE SHOWED UP AT THE LOCATION AND NOT TO LET HIM ENTER THE RESIDENCE.

Q: NOW, YOU HAD A SEARCH WARRANT AT THAT TIME; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: IF YOU KNOW, DETECTIVE, DOES THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE A SEARCH WARRANT FOR THE PREMISES, DOES THAT ALLOW YOU TO PREVENT PERSONS OR OTHER PERSONS OR CIVILIANS FROM ENTERING THE PROPERTY TO BE SEARCHED?

A: YES. IT WAS A SECURED CRIME SCENE.

Q: DID YOU EVER TELL OFFICER THOMPSON TO HANDCUFF MR. SIMPSON?

A: NO.

Q: WHERE WERE YOU WHEN YOU FIRST SAW MR. SIMPSON HANDCUFFED?

A: STANDING IN THE KITCHEN AREA OF THE RESIDENCE.

Q: OKAY. WHAT DID YOU DO WHEN YOU SAW THE HANDCUFFS ON MR. SIMPSON?

A: I IMMEDIATELY RESPONDED TO HIS LOCATION.

Q: I'M GOING TO REPLAY THE VIDEO AT A SLOWER SPEED AND I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO IDENTIFY SOME OF THE PERSONS YOU SEE IN THE VIDEO. OKAY.

(AT 9:34 A.M., PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT 124, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS REPLAYED.)

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: LET ME STOP RIGHT THERE. THERE IS AN OFFICER IN THE BACKGROUND THERE. WHO IS THAT OFFICER, IF YOU KNOW?

A: I BELIEVE THAT IS OFFICER THOMPSON.

MR. DARDEN: LET IT PLAY SOME MORE.

(THE VIDEOTAPE CONTINUES PLAYING.)

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: IS MR. SIMPSON HANDCUFFED AT THIS POINT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, STOP THERE. YOU ARE HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, AT THIS POINT HAD YOU REMOVED THE HANDCUFFS?

A: NO.

Q: OKAY. YOU DID NOT IMMEDIATELY TAKE -- TAKE THE HANDCUFFS OFF MR. SIMPSON?

A: NO, I DIDN'T IMMEDIATELY.

Q: OKAY. HOW MUCH TIME ELAPSED BETWEEN YOUR FIRST CONTACT WITH MR. SIMPSON AND YOUR REMOVAL OF THE HANDCUFFS?

A: VERY SHORT TIME. A COUPLE OF MINUTES MAYBE, TWO, THREE MINUTES.

Q: IS THERE SOME REASON THAT YOU DELAYED TWO TO THREE MINUTES BEFORE TAKING THE HANDCUFFS OFF MR. SIMPSON?

A: I WAS EXPLAINING THE -- THE SITUATION TO HIM, WHAT WAS GOING ON AND WAS AWAITING HIS ATTORNEY'S ARRIVAL THERE.

Q: YOU WERE EXPECTING MR. WEITZMAN TO APPROACH YOU AND MR. SIMPSON?

A: YES.

(THE VIDEOTAPE CONTINUES PLAYING.)

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHAT ARE YOU DOING NOW? ARE YOU REACHING FOR SOMETHING?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

MR. DARDEN: STOP. STOP. BACK UP A LITTLE BIT.

THE WITNESS: IT LOOKS LIKE I'M PUTTING MY HAND IN MY POCKET. I WOULD ASSUME AT THAT POINT -- WELL, I DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW AT THAT POINT WHAT I WAS DOING. I MAY HAVE BEEN REMOVING MY KEYS. I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR A FACT.

MR. DARDEN: LET IT PLAY.

(THE VIDEOTAPE CONTINUES PLAYING.)

MR. DARDEN: STOP.

Q: THE -- THERE IS ANOTHER OFFICER THEN IN THE PHOTOGRAPH; IS THAT RIGHT, OR THE VIDEO, RATHER?

A: YES.

Q: WHO IS THAT PERSON?

A: I BELIEVE THAT IS DETECTIVE BRAD ROBERTS.

MR. DARDEN: LET IT PLAY A LITTLE MORE UNTIL YOU SEE ROBERT'S FACE.

(THE VIDEOTAPE CONTINUES PLAYING.)

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: IS THAT DETECTIVE ROBERTS -- KEEP WATCHING IT.

A: YES, THAT IS DETECTIVE ROBERTS.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY. LET IT PLAY.

(THE VIDEOTAPE CONTINUES PLAYING.)

MR. DARDEN: STOP.

Q: NOW, IS DETECTIVE ROBERTS HOLDING SOMETHING?

A: IT LOOKS LIKE IT, YES.

Q: OKAY. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS THAT HE IS HOLDING, DETECTIVE?

A: IT LOOKS LIKE A NOTEBOOK. I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.

Q: OKAY. THAT LOOKS LIKE A NOTEBOOK TO YOU, DETECTIVE?

MR. SHAPIRO: BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED. OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: FROM THAT ANGLE FROM THIS PICTURE IT IS VERY, VERY HARD TO TELL WHAT HE IS HOLDING.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DON'T TAKE YOUR EYES OFF THAT VIDEO SCREEN UNTIL I SAY SO, DETECTIVE VANNATTER.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

THE COURT: IT APPEARS WE JUST RAN THE TAPE BACKWARDS A LITTLE.

(THE VIDEOTAPE CONTINUES PLAYING.)

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: STILL LOOK LIKE A NOTEBOOK IN HIS LEFT HAND, DETECTIVE?

A: NO, SIR. THAT LOOKS LIKE THE TRAVEL BAG THAT MR. SIMPSON RETURNED TO THE LOCATION WITH.

Q: OKAY. WAS THAT BAG SEIZED BY YOUR DETECTIVES?

A: BY MYSELF, YES.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY. CONTINUE, PLEASE.

(THE VIDEOTAPE CONTINUES PLAYING.)

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: NOW, SOMEONE ELSE HAS JOINED YOU HERE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: WHO IS THAT PERSON?

A: IT WOULD APPEAR THAT IT IS ATTORNEY HOWARD WEITZMAN.

Q: OKAY. NOW, AT THIS POINT IS MR. SIMPSON STILL HANDCUFFED?

A: NO.

Q: YOU REMOVED THE HANDCUFFS?

A: YES.

Q: IS MR. SIMPSON UNDER ARREST AT THIS POINT, THAT IS, AS YOU WALKED DOWN THE DRIVEWAY?

A: NO.

Q: IS HE FREE TO LEAVE?

A: YEAH, HE COULD HAVE.

Q: IS THAT OFFICER THOMPSON THERE, THE AFRICAN AMERICAN OFFICER?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU PLACE MR. SIMPSON INSIDE YOUR VEHICLE?

A: NO.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY. STOP.

Q: YOU HEARD MR. COCHRAN REFER TO A TERM, "RUSH TO JUDGMENT," DETECTIVE?

A: YES, I'VE HEARD THAT.

Q: DID YOU RUSH TO JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU ATTEND THE AUTOPSY ON JUNE 14, 1994?

A: YES.

MR. DARDEN: BLESS YOU.

Q: THOSE WILL BE THE AUTOPSIES FOR RON GOLDMAN AND NICOLE BROWN?

A: YES.

Q: DURING THE AUTOPSY WERE BLOOD SAMPLES TAKEN FROM BOTH VICTIMS?

A: YES.

Q: WHOLE BLOOD SAMPLES?

A: YES.

Q: AND WERE YOU PRESENT DURING THAT PROCESS?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHO TOOK THOSE WHOLE BLOOD SAMPLES?

A: DR. GOLDEN.

Q: THE DEPUTY CORONER?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: OKAY. WHAT DID HE DO WITH THE SAMPLES AFTER HE TOOK THEM, IF YOU KNOW?

A: I KNOW THE PROCEDURE. HE TOOK CONTROL OF THEM AND TRANSFERRED THEM TO THE CORONER'S LAB.

Q: OKAY. AT SOME POINT DID YOU PICK UP THOSE WHOLE BLOOD SAMPLES?

A: YES.

Q: WOULD THESE BE ITEMS OR EVIDENCE ITEMS 59 AND 60?

A: I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE PROPERTY REPORT TO CONFIRM THAT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: PLEASE REVIEW YOUR PROPERTY REPORTS, DETECTIVE.

A: YES, SIR. (WITNESS COMPLIES.) YES, THAT WOULD BE ITEM 59 AND 60 OF THE PROPERTY REPORT; THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND ON JUNE 15TH, THE DAY FOLLOWING THE AUTOPSY, YOU PICKED THOSE TWO ITEMS UP FROM THE CORONER'S LAB?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. WHERE DID YOU TAKE THOSE TWO ITEMS?

A: I HAND-CARRIED THEM TO SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION DIVISION SEROLOGY DEPARTMENT.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU CAUSE THEM TO BE BOOKED THERE AT THE LAPD CRIME LAB?

A: I DID, YES.

Q: YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER, DETECTIVE, THAT ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH THAT IT TOOK YOU APPROXIMATELY SIX MINUTES TO DRIVE FROM BUNDY TO ROCKINGHAM?

A: I THINK I TESTIFIED APPROXIMATELY FIVE MINUTES.

Q: AND SINCE THAT DATE, SINCE JUNE 13, 1994, HAVE YOU BEEN PART OF ANY ATTEMPT TO ASCERTAIN HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE TO DRIVE FROM BUNDY TO ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE A VIDEO.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MR. DARDEN: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, IT IS NOT ON VIDEO; IT IS ON LASER. IT DEPICTS DETECTIVE VANNATTER DRIVING FROM ROCKINGHAM TO BUNDY AND BUNDY BACK TO ROCKINGHAM. IT IS A TIMED DRIVE. MAY IT BE MARKED PEOPLE'S 125?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: BEFORE WE SHOW THIS, DETECTIVE, ON WHAT DATE WAS THIS PRODUCED, IF YOU KNOW? WHAT DAY DID YOU DRIVE FROM ROCKINGHAM TO BUNDY AND BUNDY BACK TO ROCKINGHAM FOR PURPOSES OF THIS LASER DEMONSTRATION?

A: THE EVENING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1994.

MR. DARDEN: MAY WE PROCEED?

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, MRS. ROBERTSON WAS JUST REMINDING ME THAT WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY MARKED THE SEGMENT THAT IS ROCKINGHAM TO BUNDY AS 118 AND BUNDY TO ROCKINGHAM AS 119.

MR. DARDEN: THIS WOULD BE THEN 119.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MR. DARDEN: AND THEN 118, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PROCEED.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

(AT 9:44 A.M., PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT 119, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.)

THE COURT: WHERE IS THE AUDIO? (BRIEF PAUSE.)

(THE VIDEOTAPE CONTINUES PLAYING.)

(AT 9:50 A.M. THE PLAYING OF THE VIDEOTAPE CONCLUDES.)

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: NOW, DETECTIVE, IN PRODUCING THIS VIDEO, DID YOU HONOR THE TRAFFIC LAWS?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: YOU HONORED THE SPEED LIMIT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WHAT WAS YOUR APPROXIMATE SPEED?

A: NEVER OVER 35 MILES AN HOUR.

Q: OKAY. I NOTICED IN THE VIDEO THAT YOU STOPPED ON A COUPLE OF OCCASIONS; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: WHY DID YOU STOP?

A: FOR TRAFFIC LIGHTS.

Q: AND AT THE END OF THE VIDEO I HEARD YOU STATE THAT YOU WERE IN THE NORTHBOUND ALLEY BEHIND 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. YOU ARE FACING NORTH?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THAT THE ONLY ALLEY THAT YOU DROVE THROUGH DURING THIS INITIAL DRIVE?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. HAVE YOU ATTEMPTED TO DRIVE FROM ROCKINGHAM TO BUNDY AT A SPEED HIGHER THAN 35 MILES AN HOUR?

A: NO, I HAVE NOT.

Q: HAVE YOU ATTEMPTED TO TIME THE DRIVE FROM ROCKINGHAM TO BUNDY UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE YOU HAVEN'T HAD TO STOP FOR STOP LIGHTS?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: NOW, ARE YOU SUGGESTING TO US THAT THIS IS THE ONLY ROUTE FROM BUNDY TO ROCKINGHAM OR FROM ROCKINGHAM TO BUNDY, RATHER?

A: NO, THAT IS ONE OF SEVERAL.

Q: OKAY. DO YOU KNOW THE EXACT ROUTE THE DEFENDANT TOOK THAT NIGHT?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, IF WE COULD PLAY THE SECOND HALF OF THE VIDEO, PEOPLE'S 119.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: 118.

MR. DARDEN: PEOPLE'S 118, THE RETURN TRIP TO ROCKINGHAM.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(AT 9:52 A.M., PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT 118, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.)

(AT 9:59 A.M. THE PLAYING OF THE VIDEOTAPE CONCLUDES.)

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: SO DETECTIVE, IN THE VIDEO HERE IT TOOK YOU FIVE MINUTES AND 22 SECONDS TO DRIVE FROM BUNDY TO ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES, THAT WAS THE TIMING OF IT.

Q: OKAY. BUT IT TOOK YOU FIVE MINUTES AND 55 SECONDS TO DRIVE FROM ROCKINGHAM TO BUNDY; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: OR THEREABOUTS. THIS IS A VARIATION IN THE TIMES; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: I WOULD SAY SO, YES.

Q: IF YOU KNOW, DETECTIVE, ARE THERE SHORTER ROUTES OR OTHER ROUTES THAT COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM BUNDY TO ROCKINGHAM?

A: WELL, THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER WAYS THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN DRIVEN, YES.

Q: OKAY. AND THE ROUTE THAT YOU DROVE HERE IN THE VIDEO, WERE YOU ATTEMPTING TO GIVE US THE SHORTEST TIME POSSIBLE?

A: NO. I WAS JUST ATTEMPTING TO DRIVE TO THE LOCATION TO FIND OUT HOW LONG IT TOOK BETWEEN THE TWO ADDRESSES.

Q: OKAY. THERE ARE SIDE STREETS THAT YOU COULD HAVE TAKEN?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE MAP THAT WE SEE HERE IN THE VIDEO, DOES THAT MAP INCLUDE ALLEYWAYS THAT ARE IN THE AREA?

A: IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO, NO.

Q: ARE THERE ALLEYS AND ALLEYWAYS IN THAT AREA?

A: WELL, I'M SURE THERE ARE. I DON'T SPECIFICALLY RECALL THEM, BUT I'M SURE THERE ARE SOME ALLEYS THERE, YES.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU. THAT IS ALL I HAVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. SHAPIRO: GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY.

Q: GOOD AFTERNOON, DETECTIVE.

A: GOOD MORNING, MR. SHAPIRO.

Q: WELL, STILL MORNING. I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO START THIS AFTERNOON, THANKS. AS AN EXPERIENCED, DETECTIVE, YOU KNOW THAT WHEN YOU SEE SOMETHING YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE CORRECT IN YOUR EVALUATION, DON'T YOU?

A: I WOULD SAY THAT IS A FAIR STATEMENT, YES.

Q: AND YOU DON'T WANT TO JUMP TO ANY IMMEDIATE CONCLUSIONS, DO YOU?

A: NO.

Q: AND YOU WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON YOUR INITIAL IMPRESSIONS TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE CORRECT, IN FAIRNESS, DO YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND IN THE CASE OF OBSERVING THE FINGER OF MR. SIMPSON ON JUNE THE 13TH, YOU CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS A LACERATION ON THE MIDDLE KNUCKLE OF THE LEFT-HAND FINGER, AS WELL AS A SMALLER LACERATION, AND THAT THAT LACERATION HAD CAUSED SOME SWELLING; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND I TAKE IT THAT YOU WOULD THEN WANT TO LATER EXAMINE MR. SIMPSON'S FINGER TO SEE WHAT THE NORMAL CONDITION OF HIS HAND WAS, WOULD YOU NOT?

A: I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT. I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.

Q: WELL, WHAT IF --

A: EXAMINE THE SAME FINGER LATER?

Q: YES.

A: WELL, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE THE SAME BECAUSE I THINK THE INJURY WOULD BE HEALED AT A LATER DATE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU WOULD WANT TO LOOK AT IT AND SEE IF THE SWELLING HAD GONE DOWN AND RETURNED TO WHAT YOU BELIEVED WOULD BE HIS NORMAL CONDITION, CORRECT?

A: I NEVER DID THAT.

Q: WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO THAT?

A: I DON'T THINK I NEED TO.

Q: WHAT IF HIS FINGER WAS ALWAYS SWOLLEN DUE TO A MEDICAL CONDITION AND NOT DUE TO ANY LACERATION? WOULD THAT CONCERN YOU?

A: I GUESS THAT COULD BE A POSSIBILITY; HOWEVER, IT APPEARED TO BE SWOLLEN FROM THE LACERATION THAT MORNING.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A LOOK AT IT, WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION, AND TELL US IF YOU SEE ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE JOINT ON THE FINGER ON THE 13TH WHEN YOU FIRST OBSERVED IT AND TODAY. WOULD YOU MIND DOING THAT FOR US?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU WANT THE WITNESS TO STEP AROUND?

MR. SHAPIRO: YES, PLEASE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE.

(DETECTIVE VANNATTER EXAMINES THE DEFENDANT'S FINGER.)

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, BEFORE I PROCEED WITH FURTHER QUESTIONS, MAY MR. SIMPSON SHOW HIS FINGER TO THE JURY BEFORE WE DO FURTHER EXAMINATION? THANK YOU. MR. SIMPSON.

(THE DEFENDANT DISPLAYS HIS FINGER TO THE JURY.)

MR. SHAPIRO: WHAT ABOUT THE BACK ROW? COULD THE COURT INQUIRE IF THE JURORS IN THE BACK ROW COULD SEE IT?

THE COURT: I BELIEVE THEY COULD SEE IT THEY ARE INDICATING. THEY ARE NODDING AFFIRMATIVELY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. DARDEN: MAY WE APPROACH FOR ONE MOMENT?

THE COURT: WITH THE COURT REPORTER?

MR. DARDEN: WITHOUT THE REPORTER.

THE COURT: WITHOUT?

MR. DARDEN: YEAH.

(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE FINGER OF MR. SIMPSON TODAY AS BEING SWOLLEN?

A: IT DIDN'T APPEAR SWOLLEN TO ME, NO.

Q: I TAKE IT WHEN YOU OBSERVED HIS FINGER THAT YOU CALLED FOR A MEDICAL PERSON TO COME TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY GLASS IN THAT FINGER?

A: I HAD HIS FINGER EXAMINED, YES.

Q: WAS IT BY A DOCTOR?

A: NO, IT WAS BY A REGISTERED NURSE.

Q: WAS IT BY A PATHOLOGIST?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: DO YOU KNOW THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE NURSE TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF AN INJURY, A TRAUMATIC INJURY?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: DID YOU INQUIRE?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: DID YOU THINK THAT MIGHT BE IMPORTANT?

A: IT APPEARED HE HAD AN INJURY ON HIS LEFT HAND.

Q: WELL, YOU HAD INFORMATION THAT HE HAD INJURED HIMSELF WITH A PIECE OF CUT GLASS, DID YOU NOT?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU HAVE INFORMATION THAT HE HAD CUT HIMSELF WITH A PIECE OF CUT GLASS?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU HAVE INFORMATION FROM POLICE DEPARTMENTS IN CHICAGO?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: DID HE HAVE INFORMATION FROM? NO, OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES.

THE COURT: THAT QUESTION YOU CAN ANSWER.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND DID THAT INFORMATION INCLUDE A THOROUGH SEARCH OF THE ROOM MR. SIMPSON WAS IN BEFORE HE HAD LEFT?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE IN THAT TERRITORY NOW. SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU HAVE ANY REFERENCE WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE CAUSE OF THE INJURY?

MR. DARDEN: SAME OBJECTION.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AT THE TIME YOU WERE EXAMINING MR. SIMPSON?

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YES OR NO?

THE WITNESS: I -- COULD YOU ASK THAT AGAIN, PLEASE? DID I HAVE ANY REFERENCE?

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: YES.

A: I HAD INFORMATION, YES.

Q: AND DID THAT INFORMATION CAUSE YOU TO CONSIDER THAT THE INJURY MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY BEING CUT WITH A PIECE OF GLASS?

MR. DARDEN: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AT NO TIME DID YOU MAKE ANY DETERMINATION WITH ANY SCIENTIFIC EXPERT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS ANY GLASS IN THAT WOUND, DID YOU?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: SINCE THE TIME THAT YOU HAVE BECOME A POLICE OFFICER 26 YEARS AGO, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THERE HAVE BEEN DRASTIC CHANGES IN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES?

A: YEAH. THERE HAS BEEN CHANGES, YES.

Q: WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THEM AS DRASTIC?

A: PROBABLY, YES.

Q: I MEAN, YOU HAVE GONE FROM A TIME OF USING 3-BY-5 CARDS TO COMPUTERS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOUR EDUCATION TOOK PLACE AT THE ACADEMY MORE THAN 25 YEARS AGO, YOUR INITIAL EDUCATION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: MY INITIAL EDUCATION, YES.

Q: AND THEN YOU GOT FURTHER EDUCATION BY SOMETHING CALLED HOMICIDE SCHOOL?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WHEN WAS THAT?

A: PROBABLY TWENTY YEARS AGO.

Q: AND I WOULD TAKE IT THAT THINGS THAT YOU LEARNED IN HOMICIDE SCHOOL TODAY MAY BE VERY, VERY -- IN HOMICIDE SCHOOL TWENTY YEARS AGO ARE IN FACT OUT OF DATE TODAY?

A: SOME OF THE THINGS, YES.

Q: AND THERE HAVE BEEN THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN CHANGED SINCE HOMICIDE SCHOOL THAT YOU NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED AT THAT TIME?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: BEEN ADVANCEMENTS THAT WERE NEVER DISCUSSED IN HOMICIDE SCHOOL TWENTY YEARS AGO THAT ARE ROUTINE PROCEDURES TODAY?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: AND DID YOU TAKE CONTINUED EDUCATION COURSES TO KEEP UP WITH THE CHANGE IN SCIENTIFIC TECHNOLOGY?

A: WELL, I THINK THAT IS A CONTINUING EDUCATION ON A DAILY BASIS WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

Q: DID YOU UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION, SIR?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: COULD YOU ANSWER IT, PLEASE?

A: CONTINUING EDUCATION?

Q: COURSES.

A: NO.

Q: HAVE YOU TAUGHT ANYTHING IN THE AREA OF POLICE SCIENCE OR POLICE INVESTIGATION OR INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES?

A: WHERE?

Q: ANYWHERE?

A: AT THE POLICE ACADEMY OCCASIONALLY AND AT TRAINING DAYS, YES.

Q: AND WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU TAUGHT AT THE POLICE ACADEMY AND WHAT SUBJECT DID YOU TEACH?

A: PROBABLY TEN YEARS AGO AND IT WAS OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTINGS.

Q: AND PRIOR TO THAT WHEN DID YOU TEACH BEFORE THAT AT THE POLICE ACADEMY AND WHAT SUBJECT DID YOU TEACH?

A: WELL, I USED TO TEACH QUARTERLY OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTINGS AT THE POLICE ACADEMY AND AT TRAINING DAYS FOR DIFFERENT DIVISIONS.

Q: HAVE YOU TAUGHT ANY OTHER SUBJECT?

A: NO.

Q: HAVE YOU READ ANY BOOKS ON CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION IN THE LAST TEN YEARS?

A: NO.

Q: HAVE YOU READ ANY MANUALS ON CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION IN THE LAST TEN YEARS?

A: RECENTLY, YES.

Q: PRIOR TO YOUR TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE?

A: RECENTLY, YES.

Q: WHEN HAVE YOU READ SOMETHING?

A: I JUST READ THE HOMICIDE MANUAL WITHIN THE LAST SIX MONTHS.

Q: THAT IS FROM THE LAPD?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ANY OTHER PUBLICATIONS BY OTHER EXPERTS THIS FIELD THAT YOU HAVE READ?

A: NO. NO, SIR.

Q: HAVE YOU ATTENDED ANY SEMINARS GIVEN BY ANY EXPERTS IN CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION?

A: AT ANY TIME, SIR?

Q: IN THE LAST TEN YEARS?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT HAVE YOU READ -- WHAT SEMINARS HAVE YOU BEEN TO?

A: CALIFORNIA HOMICIDE INVESTIGATORS ASSOCIATION.

Q: WHEN WAS THAT?

A: WELL, I HAVE ATTENDED PROBABLY THREE OR FOUR TIMES IN THE LAST TEN YEARS. MAYBE AS MANY AS FIVE TIMES.

Q: WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU ATTENDED?

A: THREE YEARS AGO MAYBE.

Q: WHERE WAS THAT?

A: VENTURA.

Q: WHAT WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER?

A: THERE WAS -- THERE WAS A NUMBER OF GLASSES GIVEN, CASE PREPARATION. THERE WAS A HOMICIDE CASE PRESENTED, AS I RECALL.

Q: DID IT INVOLVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?

A: I DON'T RECALL IF THERE WAS A CLASS IN THAT OR NOT.

Q: WOULD YOU SAY THAT YOU ARE ONE OF THE OLD SCHOOL TYPE OF DETECTIVES?

A: I DON'T THINK I KNOW WHAT "OLD SCHOOL" MEANS, SIR.

Q: WHAT TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE -- WHAT TRAINING HAVE YOU HAD FORMALLY WITH DNA PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: WELL, I PRESENTED A PREVIOUS HOMICIDE CASE WITH DNA EVIDENCE, IF THAT -- IF THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DO YOU REMEMBER THE QUESTION I ASKED YOU?

A: YEAH, WHAT FORMAL TRAINING I'VE HAD.

Q: CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION?

A: YES.

THE COURT: IT WAS ALSO EXPERIENCE, COUNSEL; TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHAT TRAINING HAVE YOU HAD? LET'S LIMIT IT TO TRAINING, FORMAL TRAINING, REGARDING DNA?

A: NO FORMAL TRAINING. THAT IS NOT TRUE. WE HAVE QUARTERLY HOMICIDE MEETINGS IN THE CITY. WE HAVE ROLL CALL TRAINING WHERE DNA EVIDENCE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED MANY TIMES.

Q: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPER TECHNIQUES OF THE COLLECTION OF DNA EVIDENCE?

A: NO. I AM NOT A CRIMINALIST AND I AM NOT AN EXPERT IN THAT, NO.

Q: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH HOW DNA EVIDENCE CAN BECOME CONTAMINATED?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: WELL, I THINK I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE WAY ANY KIND OF EVIDENCE COULD BE CONTAMINATED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WELL, IS THERE A GREATER SUSCEPTIBILITY FOR CONTAMINATION OF POTENTIAL DNA EVIDENCE THAN OTHER TYPES OF EVIDENCE?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WHAT IS THE BASIS?

MR. DARDEN: IT IS BEYOND THE WITNESS' EXPERTISE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: IS THERE MORE OF A SUSCEPTIBILITY FOR DNA TYPE EVIDENCE TO BE CONTAMINATED?

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: YES.

A: WELL, I THINK THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF VARIABLES IN THAT. I THINK IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHERE THE DNA EVIDENCE IS, THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT IT IS FOUND AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. THAT POSSIBILITY I THINK WOULD EXIST WITH ANY EVIDENCE. IT COULD BE CONTAMINATED.

Q: HOW CAN DNA EVIDENCE BECOME CONTAMINATED?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE DIRECT EXAMINATION AT THIS POINT. THIS WITNESS DID NOT TESTIFY TO THE ACTUAL COLLECTION. HE IS A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATOR. HE IS THE LEAD INVESTIGATOR, SO THERE IS SOME PARAMETERS HERE --

MR. SHAPIRO: RATHER THAN TAKE UP JURY TIME, IF WE MAY APPROACH THE BENCH AT THE BREAK THEN AND I WILL GO INTO SOME OTHER QUESTIONS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR.

Q: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE WAY TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL CASE?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, VAGUE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: TO PRESERVE BLOOD EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL CASE?

A: YES.

Q: AND ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE TECHNIQUES TO PRESERVE DNA BLOOD EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL CASE?

A: I THINK PRESERVING BLOOD EVIDENCE WOULD GO TO DNA OR ANY KIND OF TESTING THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THAT.

Q: YOU SEE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE FOR STANDARD BLOOD TESTING OR FOR DNA TESTING; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO?

Q: YES.

A: I -- DNA TESTING IS A CONTINUATION OF STANDARD BLOOD TESTING. IT HAS TO BE PROTECTED TO ENSURE THE NON-CONTAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE.

Q: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH A TERM CROSS-CONTAMINATION?

A: YES, I KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.

Q: WHAT IS CROSS-CONTAMINATION OF BLOOD EVIDENCE AND HOW DOES IT OCCUR?

A: CROSS-CONTAMINATION WOULD BE IF YOU TAKE TWO BASES OF EVIDENCE AND MIX THEM UP AND YOU GET A MIXING OF THE EVIDENCE TOGETHER.

Q: YOU WILL -- COULD CROSS-CONTAMINATION TAKE PLACE BY BRINGING EVIDENCE FROM ONE LOCATION TO ANOTHER LOCATION?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: ARE YOU FAMILIAR -- ARE YOU AWARE THAT CROSS-CONTAMINATION CAN TAKE PLACE BY BRINGING CONTAMINATED EVIDENCE FROM ONE LOCATION TO ANOTHER LOCATION?

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IN YOUR ROLE AS THE LEAD INVESTIGATOR OF THIS CASE, ARE YOU THE ONE WHO IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ASPECTS OF THIS INVESTIGATION?

A: MYSELF AND MY PARTNER, YES.

Q: AND EVERYBODY WHO DOES SOMETHING REGARDING INVESTIGATION WORKS UNDER YOU OR UNDER YOUR DIRECTION?

A: I WOULD SAY THAT IS A FAIR STATEMENT, YES.

Q: AND THE PEOPLE THAT YOU WANT WORKING UNDER YOU OR AT YOUR DIRECTION ARE PEOPLE THAT YOU KNOW ARE CAPABLE OF DOING THE JOB CORRECTLY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: PEOPLE THAT ARE SENT TO THE CRIME SCENE, I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER. I WOULD ASSUME PEOPLE THAT ARE REQUESTED AND SENT THERE ARE TRAINED PERSONNEL, YES.

Q: AND AFTER YOU TAKE OVER, DO YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO REQUEST YOUR OWN BACK-UP GROUP OF PEOPLE TO HELP IN YOUR INVESTIGATION?

A: BACK-UP GROUP FOR WHAT PURPOSE?

Q: TO DO -- DO YOU DO ALL THE INVESTIGATION YOURSELF OR DO YOU HAVE PEOPLE HELP YOU?

A: NO, I HAVE PEOPLE HELP ME.

Q: DO YOU HAVE ANY INPUT IN WHO THOSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE?

A: SOMETIMES; NOT ALL TIMES.

Q: AND IN A CASE THAT INVOLVES SOMETHING THAT IS HIGH PROFILE, YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BEST INVESTIGATION POSSIBLE CAN BE DONE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I TRY TO DO THAT IN ALL CASES.

Q: BUT IN A CASE WHERE THERE IS GOING TO BE THE MEDIA PAYING A LOT OF ATTENTION TO YOU, YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL CONCERNS, DO YOU NOT?

A: I -- I WOULD SAY YES, BUT TO QUALIFY THAT YES ANSWER. I HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS WITH EVERY CASE I HANDLE, THAT IT IS DONE POSSIBLY.

Q: I APPRECIATE THAT, AND I KNOW THAT YOU WANT TO BE AS PROFESSIONAL AS POSSIBLE ALWAYS. WHAT I'M JUST ASKING OF YOU, DETECTIVE, IS WHEN THERE IS A CASE THAT HAS SUCH INTENSE MEDIA INTEREST, ISN'T THERE A DESIRE ON YOUR PART TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ABSOLUTE ULTIMATE BEST THAT CAN BE DONE WILL BE DONE?

A: YES.

Q: AND IN THAT REGARD THE TEAM THAT YOU PUT TOGETHER THAT ARE GOING TO AID YOU ARE PEOPLE THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO HAVE FAITH AND TRUST IN?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: WHAT IS THE BASIS?

MR. DARDEN: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, THAT HE PUT THE TEAM TOGETHER.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I WOULD -- I WOULD HOPE THAT THEY WOULD BE QUALIFIED PERSONNEL, YES.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: ALL RIGHT. SO -- AND IT WAS NO SECRET THIS WAS A HIGH-PROFILE CASE WHEN YOU GOT THE CALL, WAS IT?

A: IT TURNED OUT TO BE VERY HIGH PROFILE, YES.

Q: BUT YOU KNEW IMMEDIATELY THAT IT WAS?

A: I DIDN'T THINK IT WOULD REACH THE PARAMETERS THAT IT HAS REACHED, BUT YES. I KNEW IT WAS GOING TO BE HIGH PROFILE.

Q: YOU KNEW IT WAS GOING TO BE BEYOND MOST OF THE CASES YOU EVER HANDLED IN YOUR CAREER, DIDN'T YOU, IMMEDIATELY?

A: THAT IS VERY SUBJECTIVE WHEN YOU SAY "BEYOND." THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES THIS DIFFERENT AGAIN IS THE AMOUNT OF MEDIA COVERAGE.

Q: THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYING. FROM A MEDIA PERSPECTIVE YOU KNEW INSTANTLY WHEN YOU GOT THAT PHONE CALL THAT THIS CASE WAS GOING TO HAVE MORE SCRUTINY THAN ANY OTHER CASE YOU HAVE EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN IN YOUR 26 YEARS; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. 352 OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: OH, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT IMMEDIATELY. I KNEW IT LATER IN THE DAY, YES.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHEN -- WOULD YOU, WITH THOSE THOUGHTS IN MIND, TO DO THE ABSOLUTE BEST JOB POSSIBLE, FEEL SECURE IN HAVING A TRAINEE CRIMINALIST INVOLVED IN THIS CASE?

MR. DARDEN: ANOTHER 352 OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHO SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION ROLLS TO CRIME SCENES.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DO YOU HAVE ANY WAY OF CONTACTING THE HEAD OF THE CRIME LAB AND SAYING, "HEY, LOOK, WE'VE GOT A REAL, REAL DELICATE SITUATION HERE. THE COMMANDER HAS EVEN INVOLVED HIMSELF IN THIS CASE TO THE DEGREE OF MAKING PERSONAL NOTIFICATIONS. CAN YOU SEND OUT YOUR TOP PEOPLE?" WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO DO THAT?

A: I COULD PROBABLY MAKE THAT REQUEST, BUT AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER WHO THEY SEND OUT.

Q: I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT DO YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE THAT REQUEST?

A: OH, YEAH, I COULD MAKE ANY KIND OF REQUEST. WHETHER IT IS FOLLOWED OR NOT IS ANOTHER STORY.

Q: AND YOU HAVE IN THE PAST REQUESTED CERTAIN PEOPLE WHO YOU KNOW ARE THE TOPS IN THEIR FIELD, HAVE YOU NOT?

A: TO CRIME SCENES?

Q: IN ANY PART OF YOUR INVESTIGATIONS, AS THIS CASE WAS GOING ON, YOU CONTINUE TO DO THAT, DON'T YOU?

A: I -- NO. I WOULDN'T SAY THAT I'VE MADE INDIVIDUAL REQUESTS OF PEOPLE, NO.

Q: DID YOU ASK FOR THE BEST PEOPLE?

A: I WOULDN'T SAY I HAVE DONE THAT. I MAKE REQUESTS THROUGH NORMAL CHANNELS.

Q: NOW, YOU ARE AWARE THAT DETECTIVE PHILLIPS CALLED DOWN TO THE CORONER AND SAID WE ARE NOT GOING TO FOLLOW PROCEDURE ON THIS ONE, WEREN'T YOU? YOU ARE AWARE OF THAT?

A: YEAH. I SAW HIS TESTIMONY, YES.

Q: AND THAT MEANT THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT DONE, DIDN'T IT?

A: I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. "SOMETHING DIFFERENT"? WHAT, SIR?

Q: COULD IT ALSO BE REQUESTED OF THE CORONER TO SEND OUT THE BEST CORONER'S INVESTIGATORS TO THE SCENE? COULD YOU MAKE THAT REQUEST?

A: CERTAINLY I COULD MAKE THAT REQUEST. I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR IT WOULD GO, THOUGH.

Q: DO YOU HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CORONERS?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU WORK WITH THEM ALL THE TIME?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU KNOW THE CORONER OF LOS ANGELES?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT IS HIS NAME?

A: DR. LAKSHMANAN.

Q: AND IF YOU CALLED DR. LAKSHMANAN AND TOLD HIM THE SITUATION YOU HAD AND TOLD HIM THERE WAS A PARTICULAR FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST THAT YOU HAD WORKED WITH IN THE PAST AND THAT YOU WORK WITH WELL TOGETHER AND YOU WOULD LIKE HIM TO BE ASSIGNED, WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING HE MIGHT BE RECEPTIVE TO?

A: I DOUBT THAT VERY SERIOUSLY. I DON'T THINK HE WOULD HONOR MY REQUEST.

Q: HE WOULDN'T COOPERATE WITH YOU AT ALL?

A: WELL, I THINK THEIR SCHEDULES ARE SET. IT HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE THAT THE PATHOLOGIST'S SCHEDULES ARE SET AND I DON'T THINK THAT HAS EVER HAPPENED IN MY ATTENDING AUTOPSIES.

Q: WHO IS THE HEAD OF THE CRIME LAB?

A: AT THE CORONER'S OFFICE?

Q: NO, LAPD?

A: MICHELE KESTLER NOW.

Q: DO YOU KNOW HER?

A: YES, I KNOW HER.

Q: HOW LONG HAVE YOU KNOWN HER?

A: PROBABLY TEN YEARS.

Q: WHEN YOU TALKED TO HER, HOW DO YOU REFER TO HER?

A: MICHELE.

Q: AND IF YOU CALLED MICHELE AND SAID, "I WOULD LIKE YOUR BEST CRIMINALIST OUT HERE, WE HAVE A VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION ON OUR HANDS," DO YOU THINK SHE WOULD HONOR THAT REQUEST?

A: SHE PROBABLY WOULD, YES.

Q: ARE YOU AWARE THAT A TRAINEE WAS SENT OUT TO THE CRIME SCENE?

A: YES.

Q: WITH NO PREVIOUS HOMICIDE EXPERIENCE?

A: WELL, I FOUND THAT OUT LATER. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT IS A TRUE STATEMENT. I BELIEVE SHE HAD BEEN ON TWO OR THREE SCENES PRIOR TO THAT.

Q: IS THAT THE TYPE OF PERSON YOU WOULD LIKE COLLECTING YOUR EVIDENCE UNDER YOUR DIRECTION?

A: THAT WAS THE PERSON THAT WAS SENT.

Q: IS THAT THE PERSON YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE COLLECTING YOUR EVIDENCE IN A CASE LIKE THIS?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED ON THAT GROUND.

THE WITNESS: I THINK THE PERSON THAT WAS IN CHARGE OF THAT WAS CRIMINALIST FUNG.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DO YOU UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION, SIR?

A: IS THAT THE PERSON I WOULD LIKE?

Q: YES.

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION THEN, ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I REALLY HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THAT. OF COURSE I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE MOST QUALIFIED PERSON DO EVERYTHING FOR ME, BUT THAT IS NOT THE PRACTICAL WORLD.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DO YOU VIEW A TRAINEE AS THE MOST QUALIFIED PERSON?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU VIEW A TRAINEE AS BEING QUALIFIED AT ALL TO DO ANYTHING IN A CRIME SCENE?

A: THAT IS HOW THEY BECOME QUALIFIED, BY DOING IT UNDER MORE EXPERIENCED PEOPLE.

Q: AND WAS THIS A GOOD CASE FOR PEOPLE TO LEARN FROM?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IN CONDUCTING -- IN CONDUCTING THIS INVESTIGATION, YOU'VE HAD ACCESS TO MANY OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, HAVE YOU NOT?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

MR. DARDEN: THAT IS VAGUE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: HAVE YOU DEALT WITH OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO AID YOU IN THE INVESTIGATION OF THE HOMICIDES?

A: YES.

Q: HAVE YOU DEALT WITH INTERPOL?

A: NO.

Q: HAS INTERPOL PARTICIPATED AT ALL IN THIS CASE?

A: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

Q: YOU HAVEN'T SEEN ANY REPORTS GENERATED FROM INTERPOL?

A: I HAVE NOT.

Q: AND YOU ARE THE LEAD DETECTIVE?

A: ONE OF THE LEAD DETECTIVES, YES.

Q: AND ALL OF THE REPORTS THAT COME INTO THIS CASE COME THROUGH YOU?

A: NO, THAT IS NOT TRUE.

Q: I WOULD TAKE IT YOU WOULD WANT TO SEE THE REPORTS THAT COME IN IN THIS CASE FROM OTHER POLICE AGENCIES, WOULD YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND HAVE YOU DONE THAT?

A: I HAVE SEEN EVERYTHING THAT HAS COME TO OUR OFFICE, YES.

Q: AND SO TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE NOTHING HAS COME IN FROM INTERPOL?

A: I DON'T RECALL ANYTHING FROM INTERPOL.

Q: HAS ANY INVESTIGATION TAKEN PLACE IN EUROPE ON THIS CASE?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: HAS ANY INVESTIGATION IN THIS CASE TAKEN PLACE IN CANADA?

A: I'M NOT AWARE OF CANADA.

Q: HAS MY INVESTIGATION IN THIS CASE TAKEN PLACE IN FLORIDA?

A: YES.

Q: HAS ANY INVESTIGATION IN THIS CASE TAKEN PLACE IN NEW YORK?

A: YES.

Q: HAS ANY INVESTIGATION IN THIS CASE TAKEN PLACE IN ARIZONA?

A: I BELIEVE SO, YES.

Q: WHAT OTHER STATES HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION OF THIS CASE, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE?

A: CONNECTICUT. THAT IS THE ONLY OTHER STATE THAT COMES TO MIND AT THIS POINT.

Q: HAVE YOU BEEN OUT OF STATE PERSONALLY TO INVESTIGATE ANY ASPECT OF THIS CASE?

A: YES.

Q: WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?

A: CONNECTICUT AND WASHINGTON D.C.

Q: AND IN WASHINGTON D.C. YOU MET WITH THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION?

A: YES.

Q: AND IS THAT THE FIRST TIME YOU'VE CALLED UPON THEM FOR HELP IN A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION?

A: NO.

Q: HOW MANY OTHER OCCASIONS HAVE YOU USED THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION?

A: MANY TIMES PROBABLY.

Q: PROBABLY OR --

A: MANY TIMES.

Q: HOW MANY TIMES?

A: I COULDN'T TELL YOU OVER THE 26 YEARS. I'VE WORKED WITH THEM ON MANY, MANY CASES.

Q: NOT WHEN YOU WORKED WITH THEM, THAT YOU AS A LEAD DETECTIVE HAVE CONTACTED THE FBI TO AID IN THE INVESTIGATION, DIRECTLY AID IN THE INVESTIGATION?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, THAT IS VAGUE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I -- I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND. "DIRECTLY AID" IN MY INVESTIGATION?

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: YES.

A: ANY TIME I CONTACT THEM WITH A REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE, THAT IS DIRECT AID, SO I HAVE DONE IT MANY, MANY TIMES.

Q: HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU GONE TO WASHINGTON TO MEET WITH THE FBI IN THE PAST?

A: THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME, I BELIEVE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SHAPIRO, WE NEED TO CHANGE COURT REPORTERS AT THIS POINT. ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A BRIEF MORNING RECESS. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DO NOT ALLOW ANYBODY TO CONVERSE WITH YOU ABOUT THE CASE, DO NOT CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. WE WILL BE IN RECESS FOR FIFTEEN MINUTES. AND DETECTIVE VANNATTER, YOU MAY STEP DOWN AND COME BACK IN FIFTEEN MINUTES.

THE WITNESS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE WILL BE IN RECESS FOR FIFTEEN MINUTES.

(RECESS.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, MR. SHAPIRO DID NOT GIVE ME THE EXHIBITS HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO GIVE ME.

MR. SHAPIRO: I AM SORRY?

THE COURT: DO YOU NEED EXHIBITS FOR THIS SESSION?

MR. SHAPIRO: NO, YOUR HONOR. I JUST DON'T WANT TO MISDIRECT THEIR TRAIN OF THINKING. I CAN GIVE THEM SOME MATERIALS THAT WE WILL BE GETTING TO IN A WHILE IF THEY WANT TO --

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: THANK YOU. PLEASE BE SEATED. DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WOULD YOU PLEASE RESUME THE WITNESS STAND. GOOD MORNING AGAIN, DETECTIVE VANNATTER. YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH, SIR.

THE WITNESS: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD MORNING AGAIN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: YOU WERE TELLING US THAT YOU WERE IN CONNECTICUT?

A: YES.

Q: AND IN WASHINGTON D.C.?

A: YES.

Q: HAVE YOU BEEN OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES ON THIS CASE?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT BEEN OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES IN THIS CASE?

A: I BELIEVE THEY WERE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES ON A COMPANION CASE, NOT THIS CASE.

Q: HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT BEEN TO ANY OTHER STATES THAN THE STATES THAT YOU HAVE MENTIONED?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT AND VAGUE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES. THERE WAS ONE OTHER STATE THAT I -- THAT SLIPPED MY MIND. IOWA. I WAS IN IOWA.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: YOU WERE IN IOWA?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND WHAT ABOUT OTHER MEMBERS OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT? HAVE THEY BEEN TO ANY OTHER STATES THAT WE HAVEN'T MENTIONED?

A: NONE COME TO MIND RIGHT NOW.

Q: ANYBODY FROM YOUR DEPARTMENT VISIT CHICAGO, ILLINOIS?

A: YES.

Q: I DON'T KNOW IF WE MENTIONED THAT OR NOT. YOU DID NOT?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: BUT PEOPLE WENT AT YOUR DIRECTION?

A: YES.

Q: AND HOW MANY OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES HAVE YOU WORKED WITH IN THE COURSE OF THIS INVESTIGATION? JUST TELL US WHICH ONES THEY ARE RATHER THAN GIVE US A NUMBER, PLEASE.

A: FAIRFIELD, CONNECTICUT, FAIRFIELD, IOWA, THE FBI.

Q: WHEN YOU SAY FAIRFIELD, CONNECTICUT, THAT'S THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OR --

A: POLICE DEPARTMENT, YES. POLICE DEPARTMENT IN BOTH CITIES. THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, A LOT OF ORANGE COUNTY AGENCIES ON THE 17TH, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

Q: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR THE UNITED STATES OR FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA?

A: UNITED STATES AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AND I -- I -- I JUST CAN'T CALL TO MIND ANY MORE AT THIS POINT.

Q: CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT?

A: YES.

Q: FLORIDA POLICE DEPARTMENT?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS ON THIS CASE OR THE COMPANION CASE THAT THEY WORKED WITH THE DEPARTMENT DOWN THERE.

Q: BUT RELATED TO -- AT LEAST RELATED TO THE --

A: RELATED, YES.

Q: -- RELATED TO SOME ASPECTS OF THIS CASE?

THE COURT: EXCUSE, ME GENTLEMEN. YOU ARE BOTH OLD PROS. YOU'RE DRIVING THE COURT REPORTER NUTS. LET HIM FINISH THE QUESTION, LET HIM FINISH THE ANSWER.

THE WITNESS: I APOLOGIZE, YOUR HONOR.

MR. SHAPIRO: I APOLOGIZE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IN ADDITION TO DEALING WITH -- WELL, WHAT DID YOU DO AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR THE UNITED STATES? WHAT ROLE DID THEY PLAY IN THIS CASE?

A: THEY HELPED ME AND MY PARTNER IN A POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION THAT WE DID.

Q: OF WHOM?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND WHEN YOU WENT TO CONNECTICUT, WAS ONE OF THE PURPOSES THERE TO INTERVIEW ONE OF MR. SIMPSON'S WITNESSES, MR. FICHMAN, DR. FICHMAN?

A: I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THAT. TO INTERVIEW DR. FICHMAN?

Q: YES.

A: NO, SIR.

Q: WAS HE INTERVIEWED IN CONNECTICUT?

A: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

Q: HAVE YOU OR PEOPLE AT YOUR DIRECTION INTERVIEWED WITNESSES FOR MR. O.J. SIMPSON?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. IT'S VAGUE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: INTERVIEWED PEOPLE WHO WERE ON THE -- STRIKE THAT. WHAT LABORATORIES HAVE BEEN ENGAGED TO ANALYZE POTENTIAL EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?

A: CELLMARK LABORATORIES.

Q: WHERE'S THAT?

A: IN MARYLAND.

Q: THAT'S A PRIVATE LABORATORY?

A: YES. THE FBI, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.

Q: WHERE?

A: WASHINGTON D.C. AND THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

Q: WHAT ABOUT THE LOS ANGELES -- LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT ALSO ANALYZE EVIDENCE?

A: YES.

Q: ARE THERE ALSO OTHER LABORATORIES THAT HAVE BEEN CONSULTED REGARDING THIS CASE AND EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?

A: NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF, NO.

Q: AND HOW MANY OTHER CASES HAVE YOU ENGAGED THREE OUTSIDE LABORATORIES TO AID IN ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: YOU PERSONALLY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I HAVEN'T PERSONALLY DONE ANY.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IN HOW MANY OTHER CASES HAVE YOU PERSONALLY ENGAGED THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES TO AID IN YOUR INVESTIGATION?

A: PROBABLY -- PROBABLY QUITE A FEW.

Q: PROBABLY OR CERTAINLY?

A: WELL, OVER THE -- OVER THE YEARS, I HAVE WORKED WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES A LOT ON CASES. I COULDN'T GIVE YOU AN EXACT NUMBER.

Q: MY QUESTION IS, PARTICULARLY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ON HOW MANY OCCASIONS HAVE YOU PERSONALLY -- YOU PERSONALLY CONTACTED THEM FOR AN INVESTIGATION YOU WERE THE LEAD INVESTIGATOR ON?

A: WELL, I DIDN'T PERSONALLY CONTACT THEM THIS TIME.

Q: WOULD YOU SAY THAT'S A RARE OCCURRENCE?

A: NO, I WOULD NOT SAY IT'S A RARE OCCURRENCE. I'VE WORKED WITH A LOT OF AGENCIES OVER THE YEARS.

Q: HOW MANY POLICE OFFICERS FROM THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT HAVE BEEN ENGAGED AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER IN SOME ASPECT OF THIS CASE?

A: UNIFORM OR DETECTIVE?

Q: ACROSS THE BOARD. UNIFORM, DETECTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE.

THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO INCLUDE ALL THE OFFICERS ON OUR JURY TOUR?

MR. SHAPIRO: I'M SORRY?

THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO INCLUDE ALL THE OFFICERS ON OUR JURY TOUR?

MR. SHAPIRO: NO, YOUR HONOR. NO. EXCLUDING THE OFFICERS ON THE JURY TOUR. THOSE ARE THE ONES THE COURT ENGAGED I BELIEVE.

THE COURT: A LITTLE OF THIS, A LITTLE OF THAT.

THE WITNESS: YOU KNOW, WITH ALL THE COLLATERAL ISSUES THAT'S GONE ON WITH THIS CASE AS FAR AS TRAFFIC CONTROL AND THINGS LIKE THAT, I WOULD HAVE NO IDEA. I DON'T KNOW. I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: GIVE US A GENERAL ESTIMATION OF HOW MANY OFFICERS HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS CASE TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE. YOU'VE GOT ALL YOUR RECORDS HERE. YOU COULD CHECK IT IF YOU WANTED TO I TAKE IT.

MR. DARDEN: INVOLVED IN, IT'S VAGUE.

THE COURT: I THINK HE'S DESCRIBED IT.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, DON'T YOU? THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE INVESTIGATION --

A: OH, I -- I WOULD SAY --

Q: -- THAT GOT YOU TO THE POINT YOU ARE IN COURT HERE.

A: OH, I WOULD SAY PROBABLY -- PROBABLY 15 TO 20.

Q: 15 TO 20?

A: YEAH.

Q: AND HOW MANY OFFICERS WERE ENGAGED IN THE SEARCH OF THE BRENTWOOD AREA LOOKING FOR EITHER GROSS EVIDENCE OR TRACE EVIDENCE?

A: WHEN?

Q: ANY TIME DURING THIS CASE, FROM JUNE 13TH TO 10:00 O'CLOCK THIS MORNING.

A: HOW MANY OFFICERS WERE INVOLVED IN THE SEARCH OF THE BRENTWOOD AREA. WELL, WE HAD A GROUP OF RECRUIT OFFICERS DO A WALK FROM BUNDY TO ROCKINGHAM. I BELIEVE THERE WERE PROBABLY 30 OFFICERS MAYBE, RECRUIT OFFICERS.

Q: WELL, THAT'S ON TOP OF THE 20 THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED?

A: WELL, THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT INVOLVED IN ALL STAGES. THESE ARE --

Q: NO, NO. I -- NO. LET ME MAKE MY POINT CLEAR.

MR. DARDEN: MAY THE WITNESS BE ALLOWED TO FINISH HIS ANSWER?

THE COURT: LET HIM FINISH HIS ANSWER.

MR. SHAPIRO: I'M SORRY. I APOLOGIZE TO YOU, SIR.

THE WITNESS: THAT'S QUITE ALL RIGHT, MR. SHAPIRO. THERE'S A LOT OF COLLATERAL ISSUES THAT'S HAPPENED WHERE WE'VE USED OFFICERS FROM OTHER DIVISIONS OR REQUESTED HELP AT DIFFERENT TIMES, AND THEY WOULD BE INVOLVED FOR ONE ASPECT AND THAT WOULD END THE -- THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN IT.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: THAT'S MY QUESTION. INVOLVED FOR ANY ASPECT WHATSOEVER FROM JUNE 13TH, 1994 TO THIS MORNING. HOW MANY MEMBERS OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN ANY ASPECT OF THIS CASE?

A: I THINK I ANSWERED THAT BEFORE. I DON'T KNOW.

Q: CAN YOU GIVE US AN ESTIMATE?

A: I COULDN'T EVEN GIVE YOU A GOOD ESTIMATE. I DON'T KNOW.

Q: WOULD IT EXCEED A HUNDRED?

A: THAT'S POSSIBLE. THAT'S POSSIBLE. I DON'T KNOW.

Q: WOULD YOU SAY IN YOUR CAREER, THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED CASES THAT HAS EVER BEEN DONE BY THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?

MR. DARDEN: 352 OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO, I WOULDN'T SAY THAT. I WOULD SAY IT RANKS UP THERE WITH A LOT OF CASES. A LOT OF CASES HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WANTED DONE IN THIS CASE THAT HASN'T BEEN DONE BECAUSE OF LACK OF RESOURCES OR MANPOWER?

A: NO.

Q: IS THERE ANY AGENCY IN THE UNITED STATES THAT YOU WOULD LIKE ASSISTANCE FOR IN THIS CASE THAT HAS REFUSED TO GIVE YOU ASSISTANCE?

A: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

Q: IS THERE ANY AGENCY IN THE WORLD THAT YOU WOULD SEEK ASSISTANCE FROM WHO HASN'T GIVEN YOU ASSISTANCE?

A: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

Q: HAVE YOU CONDUCTED THE MOST THOROUGH SEARCH THAT YOU COULD AS A PROFESSIONAL TO LOOK FOR THE MURDER WEAPON IN THIS CASE?

A: YES.

Q: HAVE YOU FOUND IT?

A: NO, I HAVE NOT.

Q: HAVE YOU FOUND ANY WEAPONS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE INJURIES ON EITHER NICOLE SIMPSON OR RONALD GOLDMAN?

A: NO, I HAVE NOT.

Q: HAVE YOU FOUND ANY KNIVES IN THE AREA OF THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. MAY WE APPROACH FOR A MOMENT?

THE COURT: YES, WITH THE COURT REPORTER.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDEBAR. MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: I WANTED TO LODGE AN OBJECTION IN ADVANCE TO ANY ATTEMPT BY THE DEFENSE TO PRESENT TO THE JURY THE ITEMS SEIZED BY JUDGE WONG.

MR. SHAPIRO: I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT.

THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO HAD INDICATED THAT HE WASN'T GOING TO USE ANY EXHIBITS FOR THIS SEGMENT. SO I ASSUME --

MR. SHAPIRO: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. DARDEN: IN ADDITION, IN ADVANCE, I'D LIKE TO LODGE AN OBJECTION TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE SEARCH WARRANT THAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER OFFERED.

MR. SHAPIRO: THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE IN THIS SESSION EITHER. LET'S GO.

MS. CLARK: I THINK WE OUGHT TO ADDRESS IT AT SOME POINT BEFORE MR. SHAPIRO --

THE COURT: ONE PERSON.

MR. DARDEN: AT SOME POINT, WE OUGHT TO ADDRESS IT BEFORE MR. SHAPIRO ATTEMPTS TO PRESENT IT TO THE JURY.

MR. COCHRAN: THEY SHOULD READ THE RULE --

THE COURT: ONE PERSON.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS ON ANOTHER MATTER. THEY'RE NOT STANDING UP WHEN THEY'RE OBJECTING.

THE COURT: NO. HE IS.

MR. COCHRAN: HE DIDN'T.

THE COURT: HE'S DONE IT SEVERAL TIMES.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL --

MR. SHAPIRO: CAN WE PROCEED, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: LET'S PROCEED.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: YOU ARE AWARE THAT A KNIFE WAS RECOVERED NEAR THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS; ARE YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT KNIFE HAD BLOOD ON IT?

A: THAT'S WHAT I WAS TOLD.

Q: AND THAT BLOOD CAME BACK A TYPE B BLOOD?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DO YOU KNOW IF THAT BLOOD CAME BACK AS THE BLOOD TYPE OF AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS NOT A PERSON WHO IS A DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE?

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. IT'S HEARSAY.

MR. DARDEN: AND BEYOND THE SCOPE, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: HOW MANY KNIVES HAVE YOU BOOKED INTO EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?

A: THERE'S BEEN QUITE A FEW BOOKED.

Q: HOW MANY?

A: I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY. MAYBE FIVE OR SIX.

Q: ISN'T THAT AN IMPORTANT THING TO KNOW, HOW MANY KNIVES ARE BOOKED IN THIS CASE?

A: WELL, SIR, THERE'S BEEN OVER -- I THINK AROUND 450 ITEMS OF EVIDENCE BOOKED, AND IT'S HARD TO KEEP UP WITH ALL OF IT.

Q: I BET IT IS. BUT YOU KEEP A LIST OF THAT, DON'T YOU?

A: YES, SIR, WE DO.

Q: AND YOU REVIEWED YOUR RECORDS BEFORE YOU CAME HERE TO TESTIFY, DIDN'T YOU?

A: I'VE LOOKED THROUGH THEM, YES.

Q: YOU JUST LOOKED THROUGH THEM?

A: THAT'S ALL.

Q: FOR THIS TESTIMONY, YOU JUST PERUSED YOUR RECORDS BEFORE YOU GOT ON THE WITNESS STAND TO TESTIFY?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. DARDEN: ARGUMENTATIVE, YOUR HONOR. OBJECTION.

THE COURT: INTERESTING.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DO YOU NEED SOME MORE TIME TO PREPARE YOURSELF FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION?

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: THAT IS. SUSTAINED.

MR. SHAPIRO: I'M JUST BEING COURTEOUS.

MR. DARDEN: MOTION TO STRIKE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: PROCEED, COUNSEL.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: ALONG THE LINES OF -- THE KNIFE EVIDENCE, WHAT OTHER EFFORTS WERE MADE TO -- WHAT WERE THE EFFORTS THAT YOU HAVE INSTITUTED TO LOOK FOR THE KNIFE THAT YOU BELIEVE WAS THE MURDER WEAPON IN THIS CASE?

A: WHAT EFFORTS HAVE I MADE?

Q: YEAH.

A: WELL, A SEARCH WARRANT WAS OBTAINED AND THE -- MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE WAS SEARCHED AS WELL AS THE GROUNDS.

Q: HOW MANY TIMES?

A: TWICE. A WALK-THROUGH SEARCH WAS DONE FROM BUNDY TO ROCKINGHAM BY SEVERAL RECRUIT OFFICERS WHERE WE WERE SEARCHING THE STREETS, THE SHRUBBERY, THE STORM DRAINS, SO ON AND SO FORTH.

Q: WOULD YOU DESCRIBE HOW THAT EFFORT WAS MOUNTED AND WHAT INSTRUCTIONS WERE GIVEN TO THE RECRUITS?

A: HOW IT WAS MOUNTED?

Q: YES.

A: WE REQUESTED THROUGH THE LOS ANGELES POLICE ACADEMY FOR A NUMBER OF RECRUIT OFFICERS TO ASSIST US IN DOING A WALK THROUGH BETWEEN BUNDY AND ROCKINGHAM. WE INSTRUCTED THE -- THE RECRUIT OFFICERS TO LOOK FOR ANY BLOOD EVIDENCE, ANY CLOTHING THAT MAY CONTAIN BLOOD, ANY WEAPONS THAT MAY CONTAIN BLOOD OR ANYTHING AT ALL THAT APPEARED TO BE OUT OF THE ORDINARY OR SUSPICIOUS.

Q: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE TERM "GRID"?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT IS -- A "GRID" IS A WAY TO MAP OUT CERTAIN AREAS TO BE SEARCHED TO MAKE SURE YOU DON'T MISS ANYTHING; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND THAT'S A VERY BASIC INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUE; IS IT NOT?

A: YES, SIR, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND I TAKE IT THAT YOU SAT DOWN WITH THESE RECRUITS WITH A GRID SO THE AREAS THAT YOU WERE INTERESTED IN BETWEEN BUNDY AND ROCKINGHAM COULD BE THOROUGHLY SEARCHED; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: NO. THE WAY IT WAS DONE IS, THE AREA WAS SET OUT IN BLOCKS. WE HAD GROUPS WITH A DETECTIVE IN CHARGE OF EACH GROUP AND -- WELL, ESSENTIALLY, IT WOULD BE A GRID BECAUSE WE DID IT BY BLOCKS. WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY GRID IT, BUT WE SET IT OUT IN A MAP BY BLOCKS AND THEY WERE SEARCHED.

Q: HOW MANY DIFFERENT BLOCKS WERE SEARCHED?

A: I -- I CAN'T TELL YOU EXACTLY.

Q: YOU HAVE A DIAGRAM OF THE BLOCKS THAT WERE SEARCHED?

A: I BELIEVE IT'S CONTAINED IN THE MURDER BOOK, YES.

Q: OKAY. WOULD YOU -- WOULD IT TAKE YOU LONG TO LOCATE THAT DIAGRAM? IF IT WOULD, WE'LL WAIT. I DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT THE JURY TIME.

A: YEAH, IT MAY BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT BOOK IT'S IN AT THIS TIME.

Q: MAYBE -- YOUR PARTNER'S HERE. MAYBE HE CAN HELP US.

A: OKAY.

Q: FIND THAT SO WE CAN GO ON. HOW MANY DETECTIVES WERE THERE FOR EACH GROUP?

A: YOU KNOW, I WASN'T THERE, BUT I BELIEVE THERE WAS ONE OR POSSIBLY TWO ASSIGNED TO EACH GROUP.

Q: AND HOW MANY GROUPS WERE THERE?

A: I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT RIGHT NOW. IT WAS DONE ON TWO SEPARATE TIMES I BELIEVE.

Q: AND THE PURPOSE WAS TO TRACK THE AREA THAT YOU HAD SHOWN US THIS NICE VIDEO OF YOU DRIVING AROUND ON?

A: UH-HUH.

Q: REMEMBER YOU JUST SAW THAT?

A: YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND THAT'S THE AREA YOU WANTED TO SEARCH?

A: YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, YOU LOOKED IN THE STORM DRAINS?

A: THE OFFICERS DID, YES.

Q: LOOKED UNDER THE MANHOLES?

A: I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY DID THAT OR NOT.

Q: WELL, WHO INSTRUCTED THEM WHAT TO LOOK FOR?

A: THE INFORMATION WAS RELAYED FROM US TO THE DETECTIVES THAT WAS RUNNING THE OPERATION.

Q: WHAT DID YOU -- YOU'RE IN CHARGE. YOU TOLD US THAT.

A: UH-HUH.

Q: THAT'S YOUR SEARCH, CORRECT?

A: IT'S PART OF THE COLLATERAL EFFORT THAT'S GOING ON AT THAT TIME, YES.

Q: YOUR SEARCH. I MEAN, IS THAT A FAIR TERM OR NOT?

A: WELL, I WASN'T THERE, SIR. IT WAS PART OF THE COLLATERAL EFFORT THAT WAS BEING HANDLED AT THAT TIME.

Q: I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE NOT THERE WITH YOUR FLASHLIGHT ON YOUR HANDS AND KNEES, BUT YOU'RE DIRECTING THE SEARCH; ARE YOU NOT?

A: DIRECTING IT EX PARTE, YES. I GUESS -- I GUESS YOU COULD SAY THAT, YES.

Q: WELL, YOU'RE THE ONE -- IT WAS YOUR IDEA TO DO THE SEARCH, WASN'T IT?

A: WELL, IT WAS A GROUP IDEA BETWEEN OUR SUPERVISOR AND MYSELF, MY PARTNER, OUR CAPTAIN. IT WAS DISCUSSED AND YES, IT WAS DONE.

Q: SO THIS IS A PRETTY HIGH-LEVEL DECISION?

A: I -- WHAT DO YOU MEAN, "HIGH LEVEL"?

Q: TO -- WELL, LET ME GO ON. IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT, LET'S GO TO SOMETHING ELSE.

THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO, THE GRATUITOUS COMMENTS AREN'T NECESSARY.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU. I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: THIS SEARCH AS TO WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO LOOK FOR, DID YOU TELL SOMEBODY WHAT YOU WANTED TO LOOK FOR?

A: YES, AS I TOLD YOU BEFORE.

Q: OKAY. AND DID YOU TELL THEM WHERE YOU WANTED THE PEOPLE TO LOOK FOR THIS?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. WHERE DID YOU TELL THEM YOU WANTED THEM TO LOOK?

A: I TOLD THEM I WANTED THE POSSIBLE ROUTES. THERE'S MORE THAN ONE POSSIBLE ROUTE WALKED. I WANTED THE SHRUBBERY CHECKED, I WANTED THE LAWNS CHECKED, I WANTED THE STREETS CHECKED AND I WANTED THE DRAINS CHECKED.

Q: WHAT ABOUT THE GUTTERS IN HOUSES?

A: NO.

Q: WHAT ABOUT ROOFTOPS?

A: NO.

Q: WHY NOT?

A: BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE MANPOWER TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT OVER A LARGE AREA LIKE THAT.

Q: DID YOU ASK?

A: NO. I DIDN'T ASK.

Q: AND THIS WAS A FOOT SEARCH?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: AND NOTHING RELATING TO WHAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER A MURDER WEAPON WAS FOUND?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: BUT WEAPONS WERE FOUND?

A: I DON'T KNOW THAT'S TRUE.

Q: YOU DON'T KNOW IF WEAPONS WERE FOUND OR NOT?

A: NO. ON THAT SEARCH, I DON'T KNOW.

Q: WERE ANY WEAPONS EVER BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION IN THAT AREA THAT CONTAINED THE BLOOD OF SOMEONE OTHER THAN O.J. SIMPSON, NICOLE BROWN OR RONALD GOLDMAN?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. IT'S IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I CONFER WITH MR. SHAPIRO FOR ONE MOMENT?

THE COURT: SURE.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WERE THERE ANY WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO THE RECRUITS THAT WERE SEARCHING?

A: I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE. I WASN'T THERE.

Q: LET ME APPROACH WITH AN EXHIBIT THAT HAS BEEN PULLED, AND THIS APPEARS TO BE A MAP OF THE AREA. IS THAT THE AREA THAT YOU INSTRUCTED OTHERS TO SEARCH?

A: YES. IT'S PART OF THE AREA, YES.

Q: PART OF THE AREA EXCEEDED THAT?

A: NO. I THINK THE AREA WOULD BE A LITTLE SMALLER THAN THIS.

Q: WELL, IS THERE ANY MAP THAT SHOWS WHAT AREA THAT YOU WANTED SEARCHED? THIS WAS HANDED TO ME BY MR. DARDEN.

A: I THINK -- I THINK WHAT HAPPENED -- THIS WOULD SHOW THE AREA THAT I WANTED SEARCH. I THINK WHAT HAPPENED OR THE WAY IT WAS DONE IS, THE DETECTIVES, AFTER WE HAD ASKED FOR THIS TO BE DONE, HAD MAPPED OUT THE POSSIBLE ROUTES BETWEEN THE TWO LOCATIONS AND HAD CREATED GROUPS OF RECRUIT OFFICERS THAT WALKED THESE CERTAIN AREAS. AND I BELIEVE EACH -- EACH GROUP WAS GIVEN A MAP OF THE AREA THAT THEY WERE TO SEARCH AND I THINK THAT'S IN ONE OF THE BOOKS. I'M NOT POSITIVE OF THAT.

Q: NOW, REGARDING THE SEARCH FOR A KNIFE, YOU WERE AWARE THAT MR. SIMPSON FLEW TO CHICAGO?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU CAUSE THAT AIRPLANE TO BE SEARCHED?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS SEARCHED, YES.

Q: IS THERE ANY QUESTION IN YOUR MIND AS TO WHETHER IT WAS SEARCHED OR NOT?

A: WELL, I KNOW WE HAD AN INVESTIGATION GOING ON IN CHICAGO. I KNOW WE HAD DETECTIVES BACK THERE DOING SEARCHES AND THERE WAS AN AIRPLANE STORAGE FACILITY THAT WAS CHECKED BECAUSE THERE WAS A BROKEN KNIFE FOUND IN IT. BUT AS FAR AS THE AIRPLANE HE TOOK, I DON'T KNOW THAT -- I BELIEVE IT WAS CLEANED AFTER IT GOT THERE ANYWAY. SO I DON'T THINK IT WAS SEARCHED.

Q: YOU DON'T THINK IT WAS SEARCHED?

A: NO. I DON'T THINK THE PLANE THAT HE FLEW ON WAS SEARCHED.

Q: WOULD YOU CHECK -- DID YOU TAKE -- MAKE ANY NOTES ON THIS?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: DID YOU MAKE ANY NOTES IN THIS ENTIRE CASE?

A: YES, SIR, I DID.

Q: DO YOU HAVE THOSE NOTES WITH YOU?

A: THEY'RE CONTAINED IN THE BOOKS.

Q: YOUR PERSONAL NOTES?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU MADE NOTES ALL ALONG FROM THE 13TH ON?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT NOTES DID YOU TAKE ON THE 13TH? WHAT DID YOU RECORD?

A: I WROTE A SEARCH WARRANT AND I STARTED A PARTIAL -- A PARTIAL STATEMENT OF KATO KAELIN.

Q: IS A SEARCH WARRANT NOTES?

A: YEAH.

Q: YOU CONSIDER THOSE NOTES, OKAY.

A: WELL, IT WAS PART OF THE INVESTIGATION THAT I WROTE A SEARCH WARRANT ON, YES.

Q: SO THAT'S PART OF YOUR NOTES. AND THEN YOU HAD NOTES ON THE STATEMENT WITH KATO KAELIN?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT OTHER NOTES DID YOU TAKE ON THE 13TH?

A: I THINK THE ONLY THING -- THE ONLY OTHER THING I DID WAS PART OF THE CHRONOLOGICAL OF THE CASE.

Q: PART OF THE CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD?

A: YES.

Q: THAT'S ABOUT ALL YOU -- THE ONLY NOTES YOU'VE TAKEN IN THIS WHOLE CASE, ISN'T IT?

A: WELL, I'VE WRITTEN A LOT OF STATEMENTS.

Q: I'M TALKING ABOUT NOTES, SIR.

A: YEAH. THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DID YOU WRITE A REPORT IN THIS CASE?

A: YES.

Q: HOW LONG IS IT?

A: THE FOLLOW-UP REPORT OR WHICH REPORT?

Q: HOW MANY REPORTS DID YOU WRITE IN THIS CASE?

A: WELL, I MADE THE DEATH REPORTS, I MADE THE CRIME REPORTS FOR BOTH VICTIMS. I ASSISTED MY PARTNER WITH THE FOLLOW-UP REPORT AND I'VE WRITTEN SEVERAL -- I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY, BUT A LOT OF STATEMENTS IN THIS CASE.

Q: OKAY. I WOULD ASK YOU AT THE NOON RECESS TO PULL EVERYTHING YOU'VE WRITTEN AND PROVIDE US WITH ALL YOUR NOTES IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND.

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WELL, WE'LL TAKE THAT UP LATER.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IN CHICAGO -- WELL, YOU INDICATED THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH OF SOME TYPE OF TRASH THAT REVEALED A BROKEN KNIFE?

A: NO. I THINK IT WAS A HOLDING TANK ON AN AIRPLANE THAT WAS -- THAT WAS FOUND BY AIRLINE EMPLOYEES.

Q: DO YOU RECALL REVIEWING A REPORT THAT SAID THAT THERE WAS A CONTAINER THAT HAD ALL THE REFUGE FOR A MONTH FROM ALL THE PLANES THAT WERE FLOWN BY THE AIRLINES THAT TRANSPORTED MR. SIMPSON OF ALL THE REFUGE AND THAT WAS ALL SEARCHED?

A: THAT IS A POSSIBILITY, YEAH.

Q: WELL, DO YOU RECALL THAT BEING DONE?

A: I SAID THAT WAS A POSSIBILITY. I -- I -- I HAD DETECTIVES BACK THERE DOING THE WORK.

Q: BUT YOU READ THAT REPORT, DIDN'T YOU?

A: I PROBABLY HAVE, YES.

Q: AND IN THAT, THEY FOUND A BROKEN PIECE OF A KNIFE?

A: I BELIEVE THAT'S RIGHT, YES.

Q: THAT WAS NOT RELATED TO THIS CASE, CORRECT?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S RELATED.

Q: THAT WAS A PRETTY THOROUGH WAY OF SEARCHING, WASN'T IT?

A: PARDON ME?

Q: THAT WAS A THOROUGH SEARCH, WASN'T IT?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: WELL, IT'S VAGUE.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU CONSIDER THAT TO BE A THOROUGH SEARCH OF THE TRASH?

MR. DARDEN: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHAT OTHER SEARCHES TOOK PLACE IN CHICAGO?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: BASIS?

MR. DARDEN: HEARSAY, UNLESS HE WAS PRESENT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THERE WAS SEVERAL SEARCHES CONDUCTED BY DETECTIVE LUPER AND DETECTIVE LEFALL.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: TELL US ABOUT THOSE.

A: I WASN'T THERE. I CAN'T TELL YOU ABOUT THEM.

Q: YOU'VE READ REPORTS ABOUT THOSE AND THEY'RE PART OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, AREN'T THEY?

A: I'VE READ NOTES ON THEM, YES.

Q: THINGS YOU REVIEWED?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT TOOK PLACE?

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WERE THOSE THOROUGH SEARCHES?

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. CALLING FOR SPECULATION.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU DIRECT THAT THERE BE THOROUGH SEARCHES OF AREAS IN CHICAGO WHERE MR. SIMPSON MIGHT HAVE VISITED?

A: I DON'T THINK I WAS AWARE OF AREAS THAT HE MAY HAVE VISITED OTHER THAN THE HOTEL.

Q: WELL, THAT'S ONE AREA. DID YOU ASK THAT A SEARCH BE CONDUCTED OF THE HOTEL?

A: A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED OF THE HOTEL.

Q: DID YOU ASK THAT A SEARCH BE CONDUCTED OF ANY SURROUNDING AREAS OF THE HOTEL?

A: NO, I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT. THAT WAS DONE WITHOUT MY DIRECTION.

Q: SO YOU ARE AWARE THAT A SEARCH WAS DONE OF SURROUNDING AREAS, BUT NOT --

A: YES.

Q: -- NOT AT YOUR DIRECTION?

A: WELL, IT WAS DONE AS PART OF THE INVESTIGATION OF THE -- OF THE DETECTIVES THAT WERE THERE.

Q: YOU DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS NECESSARY?

A: NO, SIR. I WAS NOT AWARE OF IT. I WASN'T THERE. I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON IN CHICAGO.

Q: WELL, YOU WANTED TO KNOW, DIDN'T YOU? YOU WANTED TO BE INFORMED OF WHAT WAS GOING ON IN CHICAGO I TAKE IT?

A: WELL, I WAS INFORMED AFTER IT WAS OVER WITH, YES.

Q: AND YOU WERE INFORMED THAT A SEARCH OF THE AREA AND LOTS ADJACENT TO THE HOTEL WERE THOROUGHLY SEARCHED; WERE YOU NOT?

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. DARDEN: MOTION TO STRIKE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THAT. THAT'S HEARSAY, MR. SHAPIRO. PROCEED.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL THESE SEARCHES FOR THE KNIVES THAT YOU TOLD US ABOUT, WOULD YOU SAY AN EQUAL SEARCH WAS DONE FOR BLOODY CLOTHING?

A: THAT WAS PART OF THE -- PART OF THE REASON FOR SEARCHING, YES.

Q: AND HAS ANY BLOODY CLOTHING THAT RELATES TO THIS CASE EVER BEEN FOUND?

A: YES.

Q: OTHER THAN WHAT YOU FOUND IN YOUR SEARCH OF THE ROCKINGHAM HOUSE, WAS THERE ANYTHING FOUND AS A RESULT OF THE SEARCH?

A: NO.

Q: RELATING TO BLOODY CLOTHING.

A: NO.

Q: WE'LL GET TO THAT IN A MINUTE. HAVE YOU HAD ENOUGH RESOURCES TO LOOK FOR BLOODY CLOTHING?

A: THE SAME RESOURCES THAT I HAD TO LOOK FOR THE MURDER WEAPON.

Q: WHEN YOU GOT YOUR CALL AT ABOUT 3:00 O'CLOCK, YOU WERE AT HOME?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: ON JUNE THE 12TH, JUNE 13TH, EARLY MORNING.

A: JUNE 13TH, YES.

Q: THE EARLY MORNING OF JUNE 13TH. WHAT AREA DO YOU RESIDE IN? I DON'T WANT TO KNOW SPECIFICALLY, BUT WHAT GENERAL AREA?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO GET FROM WHERE YOU WERE TO THE BUNDY LOCATION?

A: APPROXIMATELY 40, 45 MINUTES.

Q: DID YOU SHOWER BEFORE YOU CAME, SHAVED BEFORE YOU CAME OR JUST GET UP AND COME?

A: I SHOWERED AND SHAVED.

Q: DID ANYONE GIVE YOU DIRECTIONS TO GET TO BUNDY OR DID YOU KNOW HOW TO GET THERE?

A: I WAS GIVEN DIRECTIONS BY DETECTIVE HEADQUARTERS ON THE RADIO.

Q: ARE YOU FAMILIAR -- AS A DETECTIVE IN WEST LOS ANGELES, YOU WORKED THERE FOR THREE YEARS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF A DETECTIVE IS TO BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA THAT YOU'RE WORKING; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: OH, I THINK THAT'S FOR ANY POLICE OFFICER, YES.

Q: I MEAN THAT WAS -- THAT APPLIED TO YOU ALSO?

A: WELL, I WAS NOT A PATROL OFFICER THERE. SO A LOT OF -- A LOT AREAS AT WEST L.A. I WAS NEVER IN.

Q: YOU WOULDN'T SAY SAN VICENTE IS A -- SAN VICENTE IS A MAIN THOROUGHFARE THAT YOU WERE --

A: SAN VICENTE IS WELL KNOWN TO ME.

Q: -- THAT YOU WERE AWARE OF?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND BUNDY IS A MAJOR STREET THAT YOU WERE AWARE OF?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: SO WHEN SOMEBODY SAID IT'S NEAR SAN VICENTE AND BUNDY AND HERE'S THE ADDRESS, YOU WERE ABLE TO FIND THAT WITHOUT GETTING SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FROM YOUR HOME; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: WELL, YES, I COULD. BUT I ASKED FOR DIRECTIONS BEFORE I GOT THERE BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER IT WAS NORTH OR SOUTH OF WILSHIRE BOULEVARD. THEY JUST GAVE ME A STREET ADDRESS.

Q: OKAY. SO YOU WANTED A LOCATION, BUT YOU KNEW THE GENERAL AREA?

A: I KNEW THE GENERAL AREA, YES.

Q: AND IT WASN'T DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO FIND?

A: NO, SIR, IT WASN'T.

Q: YOU FOUND IT WITH VIRTUALLY NO TROUBLE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WHEN YOU GOT THAT CALL, YOU WERE TOLD THAT YOU WERE GOING TO BE TAKING OVER THE INVESTIGATION OF THE DEATH OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DID YOU ISSUE ANY ORDERS IMMEDIATELY UPON RECEIVING THAT CALL AS TO WHAT PEOPLE SHOULD DO WHO WERE PRESENTLY AT THE SCENE?

A: NO, SIR, I DIDN'T.

Q: AND YOU WERE TOLD THERE WERE ALREADY OFFICERS AT THE SCENE?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU'RE AWARE THAT TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE IN A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION; ARE YOU NOT?

A: AS A GENERAL STATEMENT, YES.

Q: AND THAT THE MORE TIME GOES BY, THE GREATER CHANCE OF CONTAMINATION OF EVIDENCE OR DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I -- NO, I WOULDN'T SAY THAT'S A TOTAL CORRECT STATEMENT. IT DEPENDS ON THE EVIDENCE. AND NORMALLY WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE MORE TIME THAT GOES BY, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A COLD TRAIL.

Q: YOU KNOW THERE ARE GENERAL RULES TO FOLLOW IN A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION?

A: ABSOLUTELY, YES.

Q: AND YOU WERE CHOSEN BECAUSE YOU WERE ONE OF THE MOST SENIOR HOMICIDE INVESTIGATORS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: NO. I WAS CHOSEN BECAUSE I WAS ON CALL THAT WEEKEND. THAT HAPPENED TO BE MY ON-CALL WEEKEND.

Q: WELL, ISN'T YOUR UNIT A SPECIALIZED UNIT, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: AND ISN'T THAT THE UNIT THAT HANDLES ALL THE SPECIAL CASES OF HOMICIDE?

A: MOST OF THE TIME, YES.

Q: AND AREN'T YOU ONE OF THE MOST SENIOR MEMBERS OF THAT UNIT?

A: YES.

Q: AND IMMEDIATELY UPON GETTING THAT CALL, IT WAS TIME FOR ACTION, WASN'T IT?

A: WELL, IT WAS TIME TO PREPARE MYSELF AND RESPOND, YES.

Q: BUT THERE WERE THINGS THAT HAD TO BE DONE BECAUSE YOU KNEW YOU WERE AN HOUR AWAY, DIDN'T YOU?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: SO THERE WERE THINGS THAT HAD TO BE DONE IMMEDIATELY TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT CRIME SCENE WAS PROTECTED; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: WELL, I'M -- I -- IT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE IN 26 YEARS THAT THE CRIME SCENES ARE PROTECTED BY UNIFORM THAT ARRIVES THERE BEFORE ANYBODY. Q: BUT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE RESPONSIBILITY AND YOU WANT IT DONE YOUR WAY, DON'T YOU?

A: WHEN I GET THERE, YES.

Q: YOU DON'T WANT TO RELY ON SOMEBODY ELSE'S JUDGMENT IN DOING SOMETHING, DO YOU?

A: WELL, I HAVE TO DO THAT EVERY DAY, SIR.

Q: WELL, DIDN'T YOU TELL US EVEN REGARDING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN THAT YOU WOULDN'T RELY ON WHAT HE WAS DOING?

A: NOT AFTER I'M THERE, BUT I HAVE TO RELY ON PEOPLE BEFORE I GET THERE, DEFINITELY.

Q: THOUGH IT WAS NOT ANYTHING THAT YOU DID TO CONTACT THE PEOPLE AND SAY AT LEAST, "SEAL THE CRIME SCENE AND MAKE SURE NO ONE ENTERS BEFORE I GET THERE." DID YOU GIVE THAT INSTRUCTION?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: IN YOUR TRAINING AS A POLICE OFFICER AND HOMICIDE DETECTIVE, YOU HAVE LEARNED THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP DETAILED NOTES OF AN INVESTIGATION; HAVE YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU'VE TOLD US NOW THAT YOU HAVE KEPT DETAILED NOTES IN THIS CASE?

A: I DIDN'T SAY THAT, NO.

Q: HAVE YOU KEPT DETAILED NOTES?

A: THIS WAS AN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE. NORMALLY I WOULD. THIS ONE, I DIDN'T HAVE THE CHANCE TO.

Q: SO YOUR ANSWER IS?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: DID YOU DESIGNATE SOMEBODY, AS YOU'VE BEEN TRAINED TO DO, TO BE A DESIGNATED NOTE TAKER?

A: YES.

Q: WHO DID YOU DESIGNATE AS A NOTE TAKER?

A: THE CRIMINALIST.

Q: THE CRIMINALIST.

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND WHERE IN THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT MANUAL DOES IT SAY THAT THE LEAD DETECTIVE IN A HOMICIDE CASE SHALL DESIGNATE A CRIMINALIST AS A NOTE TAKER?

A: THE CRIMINALIST IN THE HOMICIDE MANUAL OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT IS THE -- ONCE HE'S ASSIGNED A CASE, IS THE PERSON THAT COLLECTS, PRESERVES, NOTES, MEASURES AND RECORDS WHERE EVIDENCE IS FOUND AND WHERE EVIDENCE IS RECOVERED FROM.

Q: DID YOU UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION?

A: YES, I DID, AND THAT'S WHY THE CRIMINALIST DID IT.

Q: SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT IS DESIGNATED IN THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT MANUAL; THAT A LEAD INVESTIGATOR SHALL DESIGNATE THE CRIMINALIST AS A NOTE TAKER?

A: I DIDN'T SAY "SHALL." I SAID I COULD PROBABLY DESIGNATE ANYBODY THAT I WANTED TO. THAT MORNING, I DID THE CRIMINALIST.

Q: IS THAT WHAT IT SAYS; THAT SOMEBODY OTHER THAN SWORN LAPD TRAINED PERSONNEL SHALL BE DESIGNATED AS A NOTE TAKER?

A: IT DOESN'T SAY NOTE TAKER. IT SAYS FOR COLLECTION, PRESERVATION AND -- AND TAKING OF THE EVIDENCE.

Q: DIDN'T YOU TELL US THAT THE CRIMINALIST DIDN'T GET TO ROCKINGHAM UNTIL 7:00 O'CLOCK?

A: 7:10.

Q: WHO WAS THE NOTE TAKER AT BUNDY?

A: MY PARTNER ULTIMATELY.

Q: YOUR PARTNER?

A: YES.

Q: SO YOU DESIGNATED DETECTIVE LANGE AS THE NOTE TAKER?

A: NO, I DIDN'T DESIGNATE HIM. HE --

Q: HE DESIGNATED --

A: HE DESIGNATED HIMSELF.

Q: HE VOLUNTEERED FOR THAT JOB. SO HE TOOK THE NOTES AT BUNDY?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID HE TAKE THE NOTES AT ROCKINGHAM UP UNTIL 7:00 O'CLOCK?

A: NO.

Q: WHO TOOK THE NOTES AT ROCKINGHAM UP TO 7:00 O'CLOCK?

A: NO ONE.

Q: THAT'S A VIOLATION OF DEPARTMENT PROCEDURE, ISN'T IT?

A: NO, I WOULDN'T SAY IT IS.

Q: NOW, MANY TIMES, THE PURPOSE OF TAKING NOTES, DETAILED NOTES IN A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION IS, MANY TIMES, THESE INVESTIGATIONS TAKE A LONG PERIOD OF TIME; DO THEY NOT?

A: YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND MANY TIMES, CASES THAT ARE FILED DON'T COME TO TRIAL FOR YEARS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: FOR YEARS?

Q: YEAH.

A: I GUESS -- I GUESS YOU COULD SAY ONE OR TWO YEARS, YEAH. THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT.

Q: AND IT WOULD BE VERY HARD WITH ALL THE MATERIAL THAT YOU'VE HAD TO DIGEST IN THIS CASE TO REMEMBER ALL THE IMPORTANT DETAILS, WOULDN'T IT, WITHOUT NOTES?

A: IT'S ACCORDING TO WHAT DETAILS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. I REMEMBER THIS CASE VERY, VERY WELL.

Q: SO YOU TOOK IT UPON YOURSELF JUST NOT TO TAKE NOTES AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: NO. THAT WASN'T THE SITUATION AT ALL.

Q: WHEN YOU GOT TO BUNDY AND ARRIVED THERE AT 4:05 I BELIEVE YOU TOLD US IN THE MORNING, YOU WERE NOW IN CHARGE OF THIS SITUATION FOR ONE HOUR; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: FROM 3:00 O'CLOCK UNTIL 4:05?

Q: WHEN YOU GOT THE NOTIFICATION, YOU KNEW THAT WAS YOUR CASE, WASN'T IT, AT 3:00 O'CLOCK?

A: I GUESS YOU COULD HYPOTHETICALLY SAY THAT, YES.

Q: I DON'T WANT TO GUESS. I WANT TO KNOW. I THINK THE JURY WANTS TO KNOW MORE IMPORTANTLY. WHOSE CASE WAS IT AT 3:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING?

A: IT WASN'T MY CASE UNTIL I ARRIVED THERE AND WAS INSTRUCTED BY MY SUPERVISOR THAT WE WERE TAKING THE CASE.

Q: SO YOUR CASE DIDN'T BEGIN UNTIL WHEN?

A: UNTIL 4:05.

Q: OKAY. WHOSE CASE WAS IT FROM 3:00 O'CLOCK TO 4:05?

A: IT WAS BEING SECURED FOR THE ARRIVAL OF ROBBERY-HOMICIDE DIVISION.

Q: WHOSE CASE WAS IT FROM 3:00 O'CLOCK TO 4:05, SIR?

A: ROBBERY-HOMICIDE DIVISION.

Q: THAT'S YOU.

A: YES, BUT I CAN'T PHYSICALLY TAKE CHARGE UNTIL I'M ON THE SCENE.

Q: SO FOR AT LEAST AN HOUR AND FIVE MINUTES, THERE IS NOBODY IN CHARGE OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE WHERE TWO BLOODY MURDERS HAVE TAKEN PLACE?

A: THAT'S NOT TRUE.

Q: WELL, WHO WAS IN CHARGE?

A: WEST LOS ANGELES DIVISION HAD SECURITY ON THE CRIME SCENE.

Q: SO THEY WERE IN CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION AT THAT TIME?

A: NO. THEY WERE IN CHARGE OF SECURING THE CRIME SCENE AT THAT TIME.

Q: SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, FOR AN HOUR AND FIVE MINUTES, NOBODY INVESTIGATED BUNDY?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WHEN TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE IN A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION.

A: BOY, IT WOULD BE A PERFECT WORLD IF I COULD HAVE BEEN THERE AT 10:00, 10:30. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A PERFECT WORLD.

Q: HOW MANY MEMBERS OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT WERE THERE WHEN YOU ARRIVED?

A: APPROXIMATELY 15.

Q: ALL STANDING AROUND.

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: WITH TWO PEOPLE WHO HAVE HAD THEIR THROATS SLASHED; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: NOBODY IS LOOKING FOR ANY SUSPECTS?

A: WELL, I DON'T THINK THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT. I THINK A CANVASS WAS GOING ON OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY WERE ATTEMPTING TO LOCATE WITNESSES, ATTEMPTING TO ELICIT INFORMATION THAT WOULD HELP IN THE INVESTIGATION UP TO THAT POINT.

Q: YOU THINK OR YOU KNOW?

A: WELL, I KNOW IT WAS GOING ON.

Q: WHAT ABOUT BEGINNING THE CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION? THAT HOUR AND FIVE MINUTES, COULD IMPORTANT EVIDENCE BECOME DESTROYED?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHAT COULD HAPPEN TO EVIDENCE IN YOUR ESTIMATION IN THE PERIOD OF AN HOUR AND FIVE MINUTES IN A CASE LIKE THIS?

MR. DARDEN: SAME OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DOES -- DO YOU HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE IN EVIDENCE DEGRADING? DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT TERM MEANS, "DEGRADING OF EVIDENCE"?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

A: THAT'S THE -- THE QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE ITSELF BEGINS TO DETERIORATE. THAT COULD HAPPEN IMMEDIATELY UPON, FOR INSTANCE, BLOOD EVIDENCE STRIKING PAVEMENT. THAT COULD START IMMEDIATELY.

Q: AND WOULD YOU AGREE, SIR, THAT THE LONGER YOU WAIT, THE GREATER THE CHANCES THAT THEY'LL BE DETERIORATION OF EVIDENCE?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. NO FOUNDATION, SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: AGAIN, I THINK THAT WOULD DEPEND ON WHERE THE EVIDENCE WAS.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHAT ABOUT WEATHER CONDITIONS? COULD WEATHER CONDITIONS MOVE -- WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS AS A FOUNDATIONAL QUESTION. DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GROSS EVIDENCE AND TRACE EVIDENCE?

A: UH-HUH. YES.

Q: WOULD YOU TELL THE JURY, PLEASE?

A: TRACE EVIDENCE IS HAIR, FIBER EVIDENCE OF THAT TYPE. GROSS EVIDENCE IS ACTUALLY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE LIKE THE GLOVE OR A MURDER WEAPON OR CLOTHING OR WHAT HAVE YOU.

Q: IS TRACE EVIDENCE LIMITED TO HAIR AND FIBERS?

A: NO.

Q: TELL US WHAT ELSE TRACE EVIDENCE CAN ENCOMPASS.

A: TRACE EVIDENCE COULD ENCOMPASS SOIL, COULD ENCOMPASS MINUTE OR ANY -- ANY ARTICLE THAT IT'S NOT -- THAT CAN'T BE SEEN BY THE HUMAN EYE THAT COULD BE ATTACHED TO CLOTHING, TO A PERSON, WHATEVER.

Q: AND IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, TRACE EVIDENCE IS POTENTIALLY IMPORTANT EVIDENCE?

A: VERY, YES.

Q: AND IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, TRACE EVIDENCE TENDS TO DEGRADE OVER TIME MORE QUICKLY THAN GROSS EVIDENCE.

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: WHAT'S THE GROUNDS?

MR. DARDEN: NO FOUNDATION, SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I -- I -- I WOULD SAY THAT'S PROBABLY A FAIR STATEMENT, YES, THAT IT WILL DEGRADE QUICKER THAN A HARD PIECE OF EVIDENCE.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS A WAVE OF THE HAND COULD REMOVE TRACE EVIDENCE FROM THE BODY OF AN INDIVIDUAL; COULD IT NOT?

A: PROBABLY A MOVEMENT OF THE AIR.

MR. DARDEN: SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: PROBABLY A MOVEMENT OF THE AIR COULD, YES.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS NATURALLY CAUSE TRACE EVIDENCE TO DEGRADE; WOULD THEY NOT?

A: YES.

Q: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE 24 BY 24 RULE?

A: NO. THAT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING TO ME. WHAT IS THAT?

Q: THAT'S --

THE COURT: WAIT A MINUTE. LAWYERS ASK THE QUESTIONS.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE RULE THAT SAYS THAT 24 HOURS BEFORE DEATH AND THE 24 HOURS AFTER DEATH ARE THE CRUCIAL TIMES FOR A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATOR?

A: FOR CAPTURING THE SUSPECT, YES. ACTUALLY I THINK -- ACTUALLY I THINK IT'S 48, 48 INSTEAD OF 24, 24.

Q: AND THAT'S A RULE YOU ADHERE TO?

A: YES -- AS BEST I CAN, CERTAINLY.

Q: AND ALSO FOR EXCLUDING THE INNOCENT?

A: OH, ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S ONE OF OUR BASIC -- BASIC FUNCTIONS.

Q: THAT'S WHAT YOU REALLY FOCUS ON, ISN'T IT?

A: NO. I FOCUS ON TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED, WHAT THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS.

Q: AND THE MORE TIME THAT GOES BY, THE GREATER CHANCE THAT EVIDENCE WILL BE DESTROYED, BE ELIMINATED, BE NOT AVAILABLE OR BE CONTAMINATED IN SOME WAY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

MR. DARDEN: SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR, NO FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: IT'S ALSO ABOUT THE THIRD TIME WE'VE ASKED THE QUESTION. SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHEN YOU ARRIVED, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND PHILLIPS WERE STANDING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET?

A: YES. THEY WERE AT THE INTERSECTION OF BUNDY AND DOROTHY.

Q: AND IT WAS YOUR OPINION THAT AT THAT LOCATION, WHAT THEY WERE DOING WAS SECURING THE CRIME SCENE?

A: IS THAT A QUESTION?

Q: WAS THAT YOUR OPINION, THAT THEY WERE SECURING THE CRIME SCENE?

A: NO, THEY WERE NOT SECURING THE CRIME SCENE.

Q: WERE THEY PRESERVING THE INTEGRITY OF THE CRIME SCENE BY STANDING OUT THERE?

A: NO, THEY WEREN'T.

Q: WHAT WERE THEY DOING?

A: THEY WERE AWAITING OUR ARRIVAL.

Q: WERE THERE THINGS AS A TRAINED HOMICIDE INVESTIGATOR, IF YOU WERE RELIEVED FROM A CASE, WOULD YOU HAVE SOME RESPONSIBILITY UNTIL YOUR REPLACEMENT SHOWED UP?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT WAS THAT RESPONSIBILITY?

A: TO ATTEMPT TO ELICIT ANY WITNESSES IN THE AREA AND MAINTAIN CONTROL OF THE CRIME SCENE UNTIL THE HANDLING DETECTIVES ARRIVED.

Q: SO NOW, THE ONLY TWO HOMICIDE INVESTIGATORS THERE, DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, ARE NOT TRYING TO ELICIT TESTIMONY FROM ANYBODY, ARE THEY?

A: THAT WAS BEING DONE BY UNIFORM.

Q: I'M SAYING THEY WERE THERE. THEY WEREN'T TRYING TO DO THAT AS DETECTIVES, WERE THEY?

A: ELICIT TESTIMONY?

Q: ELICIT STATEMENTS FROM POTENTIAL WITNESSES.

A: NO. I BELIEVE THEY TESTIFIED THEY STOOD IN THE STREET AND WAITED FOR US.

Q: AND THEY WEREN'T THERE PRESERVING THE INTEGRITY OF THE CRIME SCENE, WERE THEY?

A: NO.

Q: THEY WERE JUST PASSING THE TIME.

A: THEY WERE WAITING FOR US.

Q: HAD ANYBODY NOTIFIED THEM HOW LONG IT WOULD BE UNTIL YOU GOT THERE?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: SO IF YOU LIVED FURTHER AWAY THAN 45 MINUTES OR AN HOUR AND TOOK TWO HOURS, THEY WOULD BE STANDING IN THE STREET ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU OBSERVED FOR TWO HOURS?

A: THAT'S A GOOD HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION. YEAH. I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER TAKEN TWO HOURS TO REPORT TO A CRIME SCENE THOUGH.

Q: BUT THERE ARE DETECTIVES YOU SAY THAT PROBABLY LIVE TWO HOURS AWAY, DON'T THEY?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS --

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. IRRELEVANT.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: HOW MANY PEOPLE HAD BEEN INSIDE THE CRIME SCENE BEFORE YOU GOT THERE?

MR. DARDEN: CALLS FOR HEARSAY, SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

MR. SHAPIRO: I AM SORRY?

THE COURT: CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: ARE THERE ANY REPORTS TO INDICATE HOW MANY OFFICERS HAD BEEN AT THE CRIME SCENE BEFORE YOU GOT THERE?

A: HAD BEEN AT OR WERE IN THE CRIME SCENE?

Q: AT THE CRIME SCENE.

A: YEAH. THERE'S A LOG.

Q: AND WHAT DOES THAT LOG INDICATE?

A: HOW MANY?

Q: UH-HUH.

A: YOU WANT ME TO COUNT THEM BEFORE I GOT THERE?

Q: YEAH.

A: OKAY. HOLD ON, PLEASE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE WITNESS: LOOKS LIKE THERE WAS A TOTAL OF APPROXIMATELY 24 PEOPLE AT THE CRIME SCENE BEFORE MY ARRIVAL.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF THOSE PEOPLE HAD BEEN IN THE GENERAL AREA OF THE CRIME SCENE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YEAH. I MADE THAT DETERMINATION.

Q: AND HAD ANY PERSONNEL BEEN INSIDE THE GENERAL CRIME SCENE AREA?

A: INSIDE THE TAPE?

Q: INSIDE WHAT YOU WOULD DESCRIBE -- DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE GENERAL CRIME SCENE AREA IS IN POLICE PARLANCE?

A: YEAH. THAT WOULD BE INSIDE THE SECURITY -- THE AREA THAT'S SECURED.

Q: OKAY. WERE ANY OFFICERS INSIDE THAT AREA BEFORE YOUR ARRIVAL ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU DETERMINED?

A: YES.

Q: HOW MANY?

A: I WOULD SAY SIX, SIX OR SEVEN.

Q: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH A MAN BY THE NAME OF WILLIAM BODZIAK?

A: YES.

Q: IS HE ONE OF THE EXPERTS THAT HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED BY THE PROSECUTION IN THIS CASE?

A: YES.

Q: AND HE'S A MEMBER OF THE FBI?

A: YES.

Q: AND IS HE ONE OF THE LEADING EXPERTS IN THE COUNTRY ON CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION?

A: I THINK HIS SPECIALTY IS ON SHOES. I WOULDN'T SAY CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION.

Q: FOOTWEAR IMPRESSION EVIDENCE?

A: YES.

Q: HAVE YOU READ HIS BOOKS?

A: NO, I HAVE NOT.

Q: WOULD YOU AGREE --

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: IT'S PREMATURE AT THIS POINT. I HAVEN'T HEARD THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WOULD YOU AGREE AS A PART OF YOUR EDUCATION --

MR. DARDEN: PARDON ME, YOUR HONOR. MAY WE APPROACH?

THE COURT: COUNSEL, HOW CAN I TELL THE QUESTION "WOULD YOU AGREE"? HOW DO I KNOW WHAT'S COMING? I AM SAYING IT'S PREMATURE UNTIL I HEAR THE QUESTION. IF I'M NOT -- I CAN'T GUESS WHAT THE QUESTION IS GOING TO BE. MR. SHAPIRO.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WOULD YOU AGREE AS AN EXPERT IN CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION THAT YOU SHOULD NOT ALLOW ANYONE INCLUDING OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL INTO THE GENERAL CRIME SCENE AREA EXCEPT WHEN IT IS NECESSARY TO TEND TO VICTIMS?

THE COURT: WHAT'S THE OBJECTION?

MR. DARDEN: MAY WE APPROACH FOR A MOMENT?

THE COURT: WHAT'S THE OBJECTION?

MR. DARDEN: HE APPEARS TO BE READING FROM A BOOK IN FRONT OF THE JURY. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE BOOK.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WOULD YOU AGREE THAT A CRIME SCENE SHOULD BE SECURED IMMEDIATELY?

A: YES.

Q: IS THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO DO?

A: YES.

Q: IS THAT THE FIRST RULE OF THUMB FOR CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATORS?

A: IT'S NORMALLY NOT DONE. THAT'S THE FIRST RULE OF THUMB FOR UNIFORMED OFFICERS, YES.

Q: IT SHOULD BE DONE, BUT IT'S NOT DONE?

A: NO. NORMALLY INVESTIGATORS ARE NOT THE FIRST ON THE SCENE.

Q: WELL --

A: IT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE IN 26 YEARS THAT UNIFORM IS THERE FIRST. THEY SECURE THE CRIME SCENE AND NOTIFY US.

Q: AREN'T POLICE OFFICERS ALL TRAINED PERSONNEL?

A: TRAINED IN WHAT, SIR?

Q: WELL, BASIC --

A: OF COURSE THEY'RE TRAINED PERSONNEL.

Q: BASIC CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION?

A: DEFINITELY, YES.

Q: THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING ELEMENTARY, THAT WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU ARRIVE ON A HOMICIDE SCENE, WHAT TO DO?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: I MEAN, THAT'S JUST COMMON SENSE, ISN'T IT?

A: CERTAINLY IS.

Q: AND WOULD YOU AGREE THAT A CRIME SCENE SHOULD BE SEALED AND NO ONE SHOULD ENTER IT EXCEPT TO TEND TO VICTIMS?

A: NO ONE THAT'S NOT INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION, YES.

Q: NO. NO ONE SHOULD ENTER IT EXCEPT TO TEND TO VICTIMS. YOU CAN DISAGREE WITH THAT.

A: WELL, I DO DISAGREE WITH THAT.

Q: YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT. AND YOU'VE TOLD US YOU HAVEN'T READ ANY BOOKS BY EXPERTS IN THE FIELD. HAVE YOU CONSULTED EXPERTS IN THE FIELD AS TO THE PROPER PROCEDURES REGARDING ENTRANCE INTO A CRIME SCENE?

A: HAVE I CONSULTED EXPERTS. I'VE MET WITH MANY EXPERTS OVER 26 YEARS. YES.

Q: IS IT VERY EASY TO DISTURB THINGS WITHIN A CRIME SCENE?

MR. DARDEN: CALLS FOR SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. VAGUE.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHAT ARE THE DANGERS OF ENTERING A CRIME SCENE IF YOU'RE NOT TRAINED PROPERLY?

A: DESTRUCTION AND CONTAMINATION OF EVIDENCE.

Q: AND WHEN YOU'RE DEALING NOW IN THE AREA OF DNA, YOU'RE DEALING WITH MINUTE PIECES OF EVIDENCE, AREN'T YOU?

A: ULTIMATELY THEY'RE MINUTE, YES.

Q: SOMETIMES MICROSCOPIC.

A: YES. THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: SOMETIMES THEY CAN'T EVEN BE SEEN UNDER A MICROSCOPE.

A: I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S WAY OUT OF MY FIELD OF EXPERTISE. I REALLY DON'T KNOW THAT.

Q: DIDN'T YOU LEARN ABOUT THIS IN YOUR CONTINUING EDUCATION?

A: WHAT? LEARN ABOUT DOING TESTING ON DNA?

THE COURT: COUNSEL, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. YOU ARE ARGUING WITH THE WITNESS. HE SAID SOME THINGS YOU CAN'T SEE. ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHAT IS YOUR -- WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF FOOTWEAR IMPRESSION EVIDENCE?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. VAGUE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IS THERE A -- ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE TERM "FOOTWEAR IMPRESSION EVIDENCE"?

A: YES.

Q: HAVE YOU EVER READ ANY BOOKS -- WELL, FIRST OF ALL, DO YOU KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY BOOKS WRITTEN ON FOOTWEAR IMPRESSION EVIDENCE?

A: I'M SURE THERE ARE, COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE, YES.

Q: AND THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT -- TO BE A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATOR, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A BROAD KNOWLEDGE OF LOTS OF THINGS, DON'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND BASIC FORENSIC PATHOLOGY?

A: THAT'S PROBABLY A FAIR TERM, YEAH.

Q: YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE BASIC WORKINGS OF A CRIMINALIST?

A: YES.

Q: YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND FINGERPRINT ANALYSIS, BOTH LATENT AND PATENT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND FOOTWEAR IMPRESSION EVIDENCE, BOTH LATENT AND PATENT?

A: WELL, I'M NOT SURE THAT YOU HAVE TO -- YOU -- YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING, YES. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE EXPERTS THAT ASSIST US IN THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

Q: AND YOU DIRECT THE EXPERTS, DON'T YOU?

A: WE POINT OUT THE ITEMS. THEY DO THE COLLECTION, THEY DO THE -- THE COMPARISONS AND SO ON, SO FORTH. I DON'T DO THAT.

Q: BUT YOU'RE THE ONE WHO'S WALKING BY WITH A MAGNIFYING GLASS SAYING, "THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO PRESERVE."

A: LIKE SHERLOCK HOLMES WITH A MAGNIFYING GLASS? NO. YES, I GO INTO THE CRIME SCENE TO ACCLIMATE MYSELF TO THE SCENE TO KNOW WHAT'S THERE SO I CAN DIRECT THE CRIMINALIST WHEN HE GETS THERE FOR THE SEARCH FOR OBVIOUS EVIDENCE AS WELL AS LATENT EVIDENCE THAT MAY BE THERE.

Q: WELL, YOU SAID TWO THINGS THAT ARE INTERESTING. THE SEARCH TO KNOW WHAT'S THERE.

A: UH-HUH.

Q: SOME THINGS THAT ARE THERE ARE NOT APPARENT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: OH, YEAH, THAT'S --

Q: AND THAT'S WHERE YOUR EXPERTISE COMES IN; ISN'T THAT TRUE?

A: WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE? FINGERPRINTS?

Q: THINGS THAT ARE NOT APPARENT.

A: WHERE -- WHAT?

Q: ANYTHING THAT MAY NOT BE APPARENT TO SOMEBODY WHO IS NOT AN EXPERT DETECTIVE LIKE YOURSELF.

A: I -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THERE'S THINGS THAT ARE NOT APPARENT HERE ON THIS FLOOR. WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

Q: WELL, LET'S SAY YOU WERE INVESTIGATING A CRIME SCENE AND SOMETHING HAPPENED HERE. WOULD YOU WANT TO CORNER OFF THIS AREA OF THE FLOOR FOR ANY REASON?

A: ABSOLUTELY, YES.

Q: WHY?

A: FOR -- FOR AN EXAMINATION BY A CRIMINALIST FOR TRACE EVIDENCE, FOR WHATEVER MAY BE THERE.

Q: WHAT ABOUT FOOTWEAR IMPRESSION EVIDENCE? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN EMERGING IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS AS BECOMING VERY IMPORTANT IN CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION?

A: WELL, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME, LONGER THAN FIVE YEARS.

Q: WHEN I SAY "EMERGING," THAT THERE ARE RECENTLY DEVELOPING NEW TECHNIQUES TO FIND LATENT FOOTPRINTS?

A: YES.

Q: TO FIND IMPRESSION -- FOOTWEAR IMPRESSION EVIDENCE?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN BY THAT?

A: YEAH, I SURE DO.

Q: THAT IF SOMEBODY STEPPED ON A CARPET, THAT THERE ARE NOW TECHNIQUES AVAILABLE TO DETERMINE WHAT SHOE WAS USED TO MAKE THAT -- TO STEP IN THAT AREA EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN'T SEE ANYTHING WITH THE NAKED EYE?

A: WELL, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT CARPET. NORMALLY, THEY -- THEY LIFT THOSE FROM HARD SURFACES, NOT POROUS SURFACES LIKE A CARPET.

Q: DO YOU HAVE -- HAVE YOU READ ANY MATERIALS IN KEEPING UP WITH SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE ON WHAT IMPRESSIONS CAN BE DRAWN FROM CARPET?

THE COURT: IS THERE ANY CARPET IN THIS CASE?

MR. SHAPIRO: YES, IN TWO LOCATIONS.

THE COURT: PROCEED.

THE WITNESS: NO, I HAVEN'T.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: THIS IS THE FIRST TIME YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT THAT?

A: FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD ABOUT WHAT?

Q: THAT YOU MAY BE ABLE TO GET VERY VALUABLE EVIDENCE FROM CARPET?

A: NO, IT'S NOT THE FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD THAT.

Q: SO I TAKE IT ANY AREA THAT THERE WAS CARPET IN, NOBODY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO IN?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THAT'S VAGUE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IF THERE WAS AREAS IN A CRIME SCENE THAT HAD CARPET, WOULD YOU PREVENT PEOPLE FROM GOING IN THERE?

A: OH, I WOULD PREVENT ANYBODY THAT WASN'T WORKING THE CRIME SCENE FROM GOING INTO THE CRIME SCENE, YES. BUT TO INVESTIGATE A CRIME SCENE, YOU HAVE TO GO INTO A CRIME SCENE TO INVESTIGATE IT.

Q: BUT YOU HAVE TO GO IN CAREFULLY, DON'T YOU?

A: EXTREMELY CAREFULLY, YES.

Q: AND YOU HAVE TO BE AWARE OF WHERE POTENTIAL EVIDENCE IS?

A: ABSOLUTELY.

Q: AND IF YOU'RE NOT AWARE OF WHERE POTENTIAL EVIDENCE IS, YOU COULD DESTROY POTENTIALLY EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE?

A: THAT'S A POSSIBILITY, YES.

Q: AND PROTECTIVE CLOTHING IS VERY IMPORTANT WITH THE ADVANCEMENT OF DNA COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE, ISN'T IT?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. NO FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: ARE YOU AWARE OF WHAT IS RECOMMENDED FOR COLLECTING AND PRESERVING DNA EVIDENCE?

MR. DARDEN: SAME OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T DO THE COLLECTION AND TESTING OF IT. SO I -- NO. I WOULD HAVE TO SAY NO ON THAT.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: YOU'RE NOT AWARE OF WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?

A: I -- I JUST SAID NO. I DON'T DO THE COLLECTION OR THE TESTING OF IT. SO NO, I'M NOT AWARE.

Q: WELL, BEFORE YOU GET TO COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE, IT CAN ALSO BE DESTROYED OR CONTAMINATED BY EVEN SOMEBODY AS EXPERT AS YOURSELF GOING INTO THAT AREA; ISN'T THAT TRUE?

A: OH, THAT'S ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY, YEAH.

Q: AND FOR THAT PURPOSE, IT IS RECOMMENDED, IS IT NOT, THAT FOOTWEAR PROTECTION BE USED BEFORE ENTERING A BLOODY CRIME SCENE?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: GROUNDS?

MR. DARDEN: SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: ARE YOU AWARE THAT PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS REQUIRE INVESTIGATORS TO WEAR FOOTWEAR COVERING WHEN INVESTIGATING SENSITIVE AREAS WHERE DNA EVIDENCE MAY APPEAR?

MR. DARDEN: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: GROUNDS?

MR. DARDEN: VAGUE AS TO PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IT'S OBVIOUS, IS IT NOT, THAT IF YOU WALKED IN WITH DIRTY SHOES, THAT YOU MAY CONTAMINATE A CRIME SCENE? ISN'T THAT TRUE?

A: IF YOU STEP IN THE EVIDENCE, YES, IT IS.

Q: AND IF YOU HAD DIRTY SHOES, THAT YOU MAY BRING TRACE EVIDENCE FROM OUTSIDE INTO THE CRIME SCENE. ISN'T THAT A POSSIBILITY?

A: AGAIN, IF YOU STEP IN THE EVIDENCE, YES.

Q: WHAT IF YOU WALKED INTO A CRIME SCENE, WALKED ON A HAIR OUTSIDE AND WALKED IN. IS THERE A CHANCE THAT HAIR COULD BE MOVED FROM OUTSIDE INSIDE?

A: SAY THAT --

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: SAY THAT AGAIN, PLEASE?

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IF YOU WALK UP TO A CRIME SCENE AND THERE IS A HAIR THAT YOU CAN'T SEE ON THE SIDEWALK, IS THERE A CHANCE THAT HAIR MIGHT STICK TO YOUR SHOES AND THEN YOU CARRY IT IN AND IT CAN BE DISCOVERED INSIDE THE CRIME SCENE?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SPECULATION. SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHAT EFFORT DOES IT TAKE TO WEAR FOOTWEAR COVERINGS?

A: THERE WOULDN'T BE MUCH EFFORT TO IT I DON'T THINK.

Q: IS THERE ANY REASON NOT TO?

A: NO.

Q: IS THERE ANY REASON NOT TO WEAR HEAD COVERINGS IN A CRIME SCENE?

A: NO.

Q: IS THERE ANY REASON NOT TO WEAR COVERALLS OR OTHER PROTECTIVE CLOTHING IN A CRIME SCENE?

A: NO.

Q: IS THERE ANY REASON NOT TO WEAR GLOVES WITHIN A CRIME SCENE?

A: NO.

Q: ARE THESE THINGS THAT WOULD BE OVERLY BURDENSOME TO DO?

A: NO.

Q: WHEN YOU WENT THROUGH YOUR TRAINING AT HOMICIDE SCHOOL, WASN'T ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS YOU WERE TAUGHT, THAT WHEN YOU ENTER A POTENTIAL CRIME SCENE, DON'T PICK UP THE PHONE?

A: YEAH. THAT'S A BASIC RULE. YES.

Q: WHAT'S THE REASON FOR THAT RULE?

A: BECAUSE YOU MAY HAVE THE TELEPHONE USED BY THE SUSPECT. YOU MAY HAVE FINGERPRINTS ON IT. YOU MAY HAVE TRACE EVIDENCE ON IT.

Q: WHAT ABOUT USING ANY OF THE FACILITIES WITHIN THE CRIME SCENE, TURNING WATER ON OR OFF?

A: THAT SHOULD NOT BE DONE.

Q: PUTTING OUT CANDLES?

A: NOTHING SHOULD BE DISTURBED UNTIL THE INVESTIGATION IS COMPLETED.

Q: DID YOU DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF THOSE THINGS WERE DONE IN THIS CASE?

A: I FOUND OUT LATER THAT THE TELEPHONE WAS USED, YES.

Q: AND THAT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN DONE. THAT'S A VIOLATION OF --

A: IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN DONE.

Q: -- THE MORE BASIC RULES OF CRIME INVESTIGATION; IS IT NOT?

A: HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, THE HOUSE DID NOT APPEAR OR WAS NOT RELATED TO THE CRIME SCENE. THERE WAS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THE SUSPECT HAD EVER ENTERED OR ANYTHING HAD EVER OCCURRED IN THAT RESIDENCE.

Q: SO YOUR OPINION TODAY IS, THE SUSPECT IN THIS CASE HAS NEVER ENTERED THE BUNDY RESIDENCE?

A: OH, NO, I DIDN'T SAY THAT AT ALL. IT DIDN'T APPEAR THAT ANY ASPECT OF THE CRIME HAD OCCURRED WITHIN THE RESIDENCE ITSELF.

Q: WHEN YOU START INVESTIGATING A CRIME SCENE, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO FIND, DO YOU.

A: ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Q: THEREFORE, EVERYTHING IS POTENTIAL EVIDENCE, ISN'T IT?

A: YES.

Q: AND PROPER PROCEDURE WOULD DICTATE FOLLOWING PROPER RULES; WOULD IT NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE SOME VALUE, WHAT'S THE RULE THAT YOU ADHERE TO?

A: IT WOULD BE PROTECTED, COLLECTED AND BOOKED.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU WALKED THROUGH THE CRIME SCENE, ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS YOU SAW WAS A BEN AND JERRY'S ICE CREAM CUP AND A PLASTIC SPOON, CORRECT?

A: ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT WAS POINTED OUT TO ME, YES.

Q: AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS REPORTED IN THE NOTES OF THE PREVIOUS HOMICIDE INVESTIGATOR, THAT HE TOOK NOTE OF, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: SO OBVIOUSLY, IN DOING YOUR DETAIL NOTE ANALYSIS, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT HE DEEMED IMPORTANT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER HE DEEMED IT IMPORTANT. IT WAS SOMETHING THAT HE NOTED.

Q: IS A PLASTIC SPOON SOMETHING THAT IS CAPABLE OF GETTING LATENT FINGERPRINTS OFF OF?

A: I WOULD THINK SO, YES.

Q: WHAT ABOUT A PAPER CUP?

A: YES.

Q: IS THERE ANY REASON WHY THOSE ITEMS WOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO EVIDENCE?

A: YEAH. THEY DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE CONNECTED TO THE CRIME SCENE FROM WHAT I SAW.

Q: BUT YOU DIDN'T KNOW AT THAT TIME, DID YOU?

A: THEY DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE CONNECTED.

Q: BUT AS OF TODAY, IT'S BECOME AN ISSUE IN THIS CASE, HASN'T IT?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IS THERE ANY REASON -- WHAT EFFORT WOULD IT HAVE TAKEN TO TAKE THOSE ITEMS INTO EVIDENCE?

A: IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NO EFFORT IF IT WAS DEEMED NECESSARY. THEY STILL TO THIS DAY DON'T APPEAR TO HAVE ANY CONNECTION TO THIS CASE.

Q: BUT YOU DON'T KNOW THAT, DO YOU?

A: WELL, I THINK THAT'S A FAIR ASSUMPTION.

Q: COULD YOU DETERMINE PERHAPS WHO WAS EATING THAT ICE CREAM BY FINDING FINGERPRINTS ON THE COUPLE?

A: IF THEY WERE THERE, YES.

Q: MIGHT THAT HAVE SOME IMPORTANCE?

A: OH, I THINK IT'S BEEN DETERMINED WHO WAS EATING ICE CREAM THAT NIGHT.

Q: MIGHT THAT HAVE SOME IMPORTANCE IS MY QUESTION.

A: I STILL DON'T THINK IT'S CONNECTED TO THE CRIME SCENE. I DON'T SEE ANY IMPORTANCE TO IT.

Q: SO INITIALLY, UPON WALKING INTO A CRIME SCENE, YOU SEE SOMETHING THAT'S POTENTIAL EVIDENCE, YOU DETERMINE BY YOURSELF AS AN EXPERIENCED DETECTIVE, IT PROBABLY DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT; SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO IGNORE IT AND THROW IT OUT. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TELLING US?

A: I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. WHAT DO YOU MEAN? ARE YOU SPEAKING ABOUT A CERTAIN ITEM OR ARE YOU SPEAKING ABOUT ANY CRIME SCENE OR --

Q: I'M TALKING ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC ITEM.

A: ABOUT THE ICE CREAM?

Q: YEAH. YOU SAW IT, YOU DIDN'T THINK IT WAS OF EVIDENTIARY VALUE EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE TOLD US IT COULD HAVE A FINGERPRINT ON IT, AND THEREFORE YOU SIMPLY IGNORED IT AND HAD IT THROWN AWAY?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THAT MISSTATES THE DETECTIVE'S TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: YOU IMMEDIATELY MAKE DECISIONS, DON'T YOU?

A: NOT ALL THE TIME.

Q: YOU MAKE THEM VERY QUICKLY, DON'T YOU?

A: NO, NOT ALL THE TIME.

Q: AND YOU'RE NOT EASY TO CHANGE YOUR OPINION, ARE YOU?

A: NO, THAT'S NOT TRUE. I AM.

Q: AND IF YOU HAD TO DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN, YOU STILL WOULDN'T TAKE THAT ICE CREAM CUP?

A: GEE, MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACKING IS WONDERFUL. I STILL TO THIS DAY DON'T BELIEVE THE ICE CREAM IS CONNECTED TO THE CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, WOULD THIS BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME FOR A RECESS?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE MORNING SESSION. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU; DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS WITHOUT THE MATTER BEING SUBMITTED TO YOU, DON'T ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU. WE'LL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL 1:30. AND, DETECTIVE VANNATTER, YOU MAY STEP DOWN. YOU ARE ORDERED TO RETURN AT 1:30. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL STAND IN RECESS. (AT 11:58 A.M., THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, MARCH 20, 1995 1:35 P.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

(CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

(PAGES 19478 THROUGH 19482, VOLUME 110A, TRANSCRIBED AND SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN CAMERA:)

THE COURT: WE'RE HERE IN CHAMBERS. COUNSEL, WHAT'S ON YOUR MIND?

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, FIRST, THERE WAS AN OBJECTION INTERPOSED REGARDING OBTAINING EVIDENCE FROM DETECTIVE VANNATTER REGARDING CHICAGO.

THE COURT: UH-HUH.

MR. SHAPIRO: WE BELIEVE THAT THE JURY HAS BEEN BY INNUENDO GIVEN A SUGGESTION THAT THE INJURY COULD HAVE ONLY HAPPENED IN LOS ANGELES WHEN VANNATTER AT THE TIME HE OBSERVED THE INJURY HAD KNOWLEDGE THAT THE INJURY WAS AT LEAST REPORTED TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN CHICAGO AND THAT HE ALSO HAD INFORMATION THAT THERE WAS A BROKEN GLASS IN CHICAGO AND THAT THERE WAS BLOOD ON THE SHEET AND THE PILLOWCASE IN THE HOTEL ROOM IN CHICAGO WHERE O.J. STAYED, WHICH WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT EVIDENCE. NOW, WE CAN GET THAT IN BY BRINGING IN THE DETECTIVES WHO WERE IN CHICAGO TO TESTIFY AS TO WHAT TOOK PLACE THERE, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY DISPUTE AS TO THOSE FACTS.

MR. DARDEN: THERE'S A DISPUTE AS TO WHETHER IT'S TRUE OR NOT. IN ANY EVENT, IT'S ALL RANK HEARSAY AS PROFESSOR UELMEN WOULD SAY. IT IS HEARSAY.

MR. SHAPIRO: IT DOESN'T GO TO THE TRUTH THAT IT HAPPENED. IT GOES TO INFORMATION THAT HE HAD, WHICH HE WAS EVALUATING THE INJURY AND WHAT HE DID IF HE IN FACT HAD INFORMATION THAT THERE WAS A BROKEN GLASS, THAT MR. SIMPSON HAD TOLD HIM HE CUT HIS HAND ON GLASS.

THE COURT: HERE'S THE PROBLEM. MR. SIMPSON TOLD HIM.

MR. SHAPIRO: WAIT. BUT AT THAT POINT IN TIME, WE CAN AT LEAST ARGUE TO THE JURY IF HE HAD THAT INFORMATION, IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON HIM TO VERIFY OR REJECT THAT STORY BY TAKING HIM TO A HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL WHO COULD SAY YES OR NO TO THE GLASS.

MR. DARDEN: IT'S A SIMPLE ISSUE OF HEARSAY AND IT GOES TO THE STATE OF MIND OF THE DETECTIVE AS TO, IN HIS INVESTIGATION, IF HE IS BEING FAIR AS HE SAYS HE IS, TO LOOK AT BOTH SIDES OF THE PICTURE, IF HE HAD SUCH INFORMATION, ISN'T THAT SOMETHING HE WOULD HAVE INVESTIGATED.

THE COURT: BUT HE ALSO INDICATED THAT HE DIDN'T DO THAT. SO I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION ON HEARSAY GROUNDS.

MR. SHAPIRO: THE SECOND THING WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS WITH THE COURT IS, WE WANT TO DISCUSS THE SEARCH WARRANT. AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY PROBLEM NOW THAT THE OFFICER SAID THESE ARE HIS NOTES AND TO CROSS-EXAMINE HIM ON PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND ON CREDIBILITY ISSUES.

THE COURT: UH-HUH. CHRIS?

MR. DARDEN: CAN WE COME BACK TO THAT ONE? I WANT TO TALK TO MARCIA.

THE COURT: THIRD ITEM?

MR. SHAPIRO: THE THIRD ITEM IS, WE ARE GOING TO ASK HIM ABOUT THE EXTENT OF THE SEARCH AT ROCKINGHAM OR BOTH SEARCHES AND THAT THEY WERE COMPLETE SEARCHES LOOKING FOR A WEAPON CONSISTENT WITH THE ONE THEY HAD PURCHASED FROM ROSS CUTLERY, AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO SHOW HIM THE KNIFE AND ASK HIM IF THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND.

MR. DARDEN: WELL, THE PROBLEM IS, FIRST OF ALL, VANNATTER DID NOT CONDUCT THE SEARCH. HE WAS NOT PRESENT DURING THE SEARCH. HE WAS DOWNTOWN WITH THE DEFENDANT. SO HE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.

THE COURT: THE FIRST OR SECOND SEARCH?

MS. CLARK: BOTH. I WAS THERE AT THE SECOND SEARCH, AND THEN VANNATTER WAS AROUND, BUT HE WAS NOT CONDUCTING THE SEARCH.

THE COURT: WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE SEARCH?

MR. SHAPIRO: HE'S THE AFFIANT ON BOTH WARRANTS.

THE COURT: "AFFIANT" DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF SERVING THE WARRANT.

MR. SHAPIRO: HE BROUGHT THE WARRANT, HE ISSUED THE WARRANT AND HE ISSUED THE DIRECTIONS. WE HAD A 1538.5 MOTION AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING WHERE HE TALKED ABOUT THE GAME PLAN, HOW HE BROUGHT EVERYBODY AROUND --

THE COURT: IF THAT'S WHAT THE TESTIMONY WAS, LET'S SEE IT. I DIDN'T DO THE 1538.

MR. DARDEN: IN ANY EVENT, EVEN IF HE CONDUCTED THE SEARCH, THE FACT THAT THIS KNIFE WAS ALLEGEDLY FOUND SEVERAL DAYS LATER BY A SPECIAL MASTER, I MEAN DO WE REALLY WANT TO GET INTO THAT? THE KNIFE IS NOT THE MURDER WEAPON. WHAT IS THE RELEVANCY OF THAT KNIFE? WHAT DOES IT PROVE? IT PROVES NOTHING. IT PROVES NOTHING AT ALL.

MR. SHAPIRO: WE BELIEVE IT PROVES A LOT, AND WE DON'T WANT TO GIVE AN OFFER OF PROOF IN FRONT OF MR. DARDEN BECAUSE IT WILL GO TO OUR TACTICS AND STRATEGY, BUT WE WILL GIVE IT TO THE COURT.

MR. DARDEN: WELL, I THINK THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME RELEVANCY, AN OFFER OF PROOF AS TO HOW IT POSSIBLY CAN BE RELEVANT. IT WOULD BE ONE THING IF THE KNIFE WAS THE KNIFE, THERE WAS BLOOD ON IT. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE KNIFE HAS EVER BEEN USED IN ANY MANNER OR ANYTHING.

THE COURT: BUT DOESN'T THAT GO TO THE THOROUGHNESS OF THE SEARCH THAT'S INVOLVED HERE IF NOTHING ELSE AND THE QUALITY OF THE PROFESSIONALISM OF THE OFFICERS HERE?

MR. COCHRAN: ABSOLUTELY.

THE COURT: NOW, THIS MAY NOT BE THE RIGHT WITNESS THOUGH IF HE'S NOT THE PERSON WHO DID THE SEARCH OF THE BEDROOM OR --

MR. DARDEN: HE IS NOT.

THE COURT: OR WHAT I MIGHT ALLOW -- SINCE WE'VE ALL BEEN IN THE BEDROOM, WHAT I MIGHT ALLOW IS A QUESTION, "OFFICER, YOU'VE BEEN IN THE BEDROOM." YOU CAN ASK HIM FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS ABOUT BEING THE AFFIANT ON THE SEARCH WARRANT, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, AND, "YOU'VE BEEN IN THE BEDROOM. YOU SAW THE PARTITION BETWEEN THE ENTRYWAY GOING INTO THE BATHROOM AND TO THE CLOSET AND THE MIRRORED SURFACE THERE. WERE YOU SURPRISED THAT --" I MEAN, "ARE YOU AWARE OF WHAT IS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN FOUND THERE? TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WAS THERE ANYTHING -- TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WAS THAT ITEM -- THAT LOCATION SEARCHED?"

MR. DARDEN: THAT ALL CALLS FOR HEARSAY AND SPECULATION ON THE PART OF VANNATTER. I MEAN WHAT DOES IT --

THE COURT: NO.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT CAN IT POSSIBLY PROVE? THAT JASON PLACED A KNIFE THERE AT SOME --

THE COURT: WHAT HE CAN SAY IS, HE CAN SAY, "I'VE SEEN THE LOCATION, THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION, THE MIRRORED SURFACE THERE." AND YOU CAN ASK THE QUESTION, "SHOULD THAT -- IN A THOROUGH SEARCH, SHOULD THAT LOCATION BE SEARCHED AS PART OF A WARRANT FOR THESE ITEMS? YES OR NO?" AND HE CAN SAY YES OR NO. AND THEN -- I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT, THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEARCHED OR COULD HAVE BEEN SEARCHED WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE FACT THAT A KNIFE WAS LATER FOUND. THAT WILL BE THROUGH A DIFFERENT WITNESS. BUT YOU CAN ASK HIM SHOULD THAT AREA HAVE BEEN SEARCHED.

MR. SHAPIRO: I CAN'T SHOW HIM THE KNIFE?

THE COURT: NO.

MR. SHAPIRO: THE OTHER THING I WANT TO BRING UP ABOUT THE KNIFE IS -- AND I WOULD LIKE TO DO THIS EX PARTE BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A SENSITIVE ISSUE, AND THEN YOU CAN REPORT IT IF YOU WANT TO TO THE PEOPLE. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO REPORT IT TO YOU, AS TO WHAT OUR THEORY IS, THE SHOWING OF THE KNIFE.

MR. DARDEN: YOU KNOW --

THE COURT: BUT, COUNSEL, DON'T RELEVANCY OFFERS OF PROOF HAVE TO BE MADE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE OTHER PARTY?

MR. SHAPIRO: NO. I THINK THIS IS AN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE WITH THIS ENVELOPE AND WITH NOBODY REALLY STILL KNOWING THE CONTENT OF IT OR THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IT, AND I'M AFRAID QUITE FRANKLY, BY REVEALING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IT IN OUR OFFER OF PROOF, THAT IT WILL CAUSE A GREAT DEAL OF STRATEGIC --

MR. DARDEN: THAT'S ONE OF THE PERILS OF PRESENTING EVIDENCE IN A TRIAL. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE AN OFFER OF PROOF, ESPECIALLY IN CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THESE.

THE COURT: WELL, HERE'S THE PROBLEM I HAVE, MR. SHAPIRO. GIVEN THAT WE PRETTY MUCH INFORMALLY HAVE AGREED THAT THE KNIFE WE'RE SPEAKING OF IS PROBABLY NOT THE WEAPON AND I THINK THE EXAMINATION REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN TURNED OVER INDICATE IT'S PROBABLY NOT, I THINK THE CAT IS PRETTY MUCH OUT OF THE BAG.

MR. BAILEY: YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: MR. BAILEY.

MR. BAILEY: I THINK AS A SEPARATE GROUND OF RELEVANCY, EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED THAT THE POLICE BOUGHT A KNIFE. THEY WENT TO THE STORE. THE MERCHANT SAID THIS LITTLE ONE OR THIS BIG ONE. THE MERCHANT DIDN'T HAVE ANY RECORDS OF THE SALE AND SOMEHOW REMEMBERED IT WAS THE BIG ONE. THEY HAD IT IN COURT. THEY SHOWED IT TO DR. GOLDEN, AND IT WAS THE LITTLE ONE ALL THE TIME. THAT'S THE ONLY KNIFE THAT WAS EVER BOUGHT THERE. SO I THINK THAT IS RELEVANT.

MS. CLARK: IT WOULD BE RELEVANT IMPEACHMENT IF WE WERE GOING TO OFFER THAT SALESMAN IN AS TO -- IN THIS TRIAL. BUT WE'RE NOT. SO WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO IMPEACH? THE PRELIM? THEY COULD HAVE DONE THAT AT THE PRELIM IF THEY SO CHOSE. IT'S CERTAINLY NOT RELEVANT NOW.

MR. COCHRAN: WITHOUT GOING -- IT IS VERY RELEVANT FROM THE STANDPOINT IF WE INTEND THROUGHOUT THIS CASE TO QUESTION THE VARIOUS THINGS THEY DID, WE HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO THAT.

THE COURT: I THINK YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO GO INTO THE FACT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR THIS PARTICULAR KNIFE. THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: YOU SAID THE WITNESS. YOU MEAN THE OFFICER WHO ACTUALLY SEARCHED THAT AREA?

THE COURT: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: OR BRING THE GUYS FROM ROSS CUTLERY IN?

THE COURT: NO. I SAID VANNATTER CAN TESTIFY HE'S FAMILIAR WITH THE MASTER BEDROOM AREA AND THAT THIS PARTICULAR GLASSED AREA IS A LOCATION THAT UNDER THIS SEARCH WARRANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEARCHED.

MR. COCHRAN: YOU MENTIONED THIS PARTICULAR WITNESS THAT WE COULD GET THIS IN WITH?

THE COURT: RIGHT. WE KNOW THAT THERE WERE THREE OFFICERS INVOLVED IN THE SEARCH OF THE BEDROOM PLUS CRIMINALIST FUNG. AND THEN I ASSUME THAT THE PROSECUTION IS GOING TO BRING IN THOSE PEOPLE TO SAY THAT THEY DID THIS SEARCH BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT TO DO THAT TO GET THE SOCKS IN.

MS. CLARK: THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BE THE PEOPLE THAT DID THE MEDICINE CABINET.

THE COURT: I THINK IT'S FAIR TO ASK THE LEAD INVESTIGATOR, IS THIS A SURFACE OR LOCATION THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEARCHED, I AGREE, CAREFULLY SEARCHED.

MR. DARDEN: AND THAT'S IT.

MS. CLARK: YEAH. THE PROBLEM I HAVE --

THE COURT: FOR NOW.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S IT FOR NOW.

THE COURT: YEAH. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

MR. SHAPIRO: CAN I ASK HIM THE FOLLOWING QUESTION? "WOULD YOU BE SURPRISED TO FIND THAT WHILE YOU WERE SEARCHING IT, THE KNIFE YOU WERE LOOKING FOR WAS THERE?"

THE COURT: YEAH. I WOULD PROBABLY SUSTAIN AN OBJECTION TO THAT.

MR. SHAPIRO: PROBABLY. SO I CAN STILL ASK IT AND THINK ABOUT IT?

THE COURT: NO. I'M NOT INCLINED TO ALLOW THAT BECAUSE IT'S A LEGAL TANGLEMENT ISSUE. I REALLY WANT THE OTHER WITNESSES TO SAY, "YEAH, WE SEARCHED, WE DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING," OR, "WE DIDN'T LOOK THERE."

MR. DARDEN: WE WANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE MR. GOLDBERG COME DOWN AND -- HANK GOLDBERG COME DOWN AND ARGUE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE KNIFE AND FILE SOME PAPERS.

THE COURT: WELL, WE'RE NOT AT THE KNIFE YET.

MR. DARDEN: CAN WE HAVE ONE MOMENT TO CONFER?

THE COURT: I WANT TO KNOW ABOUT -- BOB WANTS TO GO INTO THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT.

MR. DARDEN: MARCIA WAS GOING TO HANDLE THAT.

THE COURT: AS PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS. OKAY. WE HAVE BLOOD TESTS AND WE HAVE AN UNPLANNED TRIP.

MS. CLARK: HUMAN BLOOD, UNPLANNED TRIP. AND IS THAT IT?

MR. SHAPIRO: NO.

THE COURT: I THINK THERE'S THREE THINGS IN THERE THAT ARE --

MR. DARDEN: WHAT'S THE THIRD ONE?

MR. SHAPIRO: I DON'T KNOW. THERE'S FIVE.

THE COURT: WHICH I WAS KIND OF SURPRISED YOU DIDN'T BRING UP ON DIRECT.

MS. CLARK: BECAUSE IT'S IRRELEVANT. THAT'S WHY WE DIDN'T.

MR. BAILEY: LIKE FUHRMAN'S TRAINING CLASS.

MS. CLARK: AND DIRECT SHOULD DEFINE THE PERIMETERS OF CROSS, DON'T YOU THINK? YOU WILL WHEN YOU PRESENT YOUR CASE IN CHIEF.

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK YOU TAKE A CALCULATED RISK --

MR. DARDEN: WE ALWAYS GET AN OPINION FROM --

MR. SHAPIRO: I ALSO THINK WE'RE ENTITLED TO GO INTO THINGS NOT INCLUDED IN THE WARRANT.

MR. DARDEN: THINGS NOT INCLUDED IN THE WARRANT ARE IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: NOT NECESSARILY. DEPENDS ON WHAT THE QUESTION IS.

MR. SHAPIRO: IN OTHER WORDS, THE QUESTION WOULD BE, SOME THINGS HE SAID HE OBSERVED WHICH WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO INCLUDE IN THE WARRANT IF HE REALLY OBSERVED THEM, AND THEY'RE NOT INCLUDED IN THE WARRANT.

THE COURT: SUCH AS?

MR. SHAPIRO: BLOOD ON THE CONSOLE AND BLOOD ON THE DOOR.

MR. DARDEN: ALL THAT'S NECESSARY IS THAT HE WROTE A WARRANT, YOU KNOW, A PROBABLE CAUSE WARRANT. HE DOESN'T HAVE TO WRITE INTO THE WARRANT EVERYTHING IMAGINABLE. DO WE WANT TO GO INTO --

MR. SHAPIRO: THOSE ARE HIS NOTES.

MS. CLARK: HE DIDN'T SAY THAT. YOU DID. YOU PUT THAT WORD IN HIS MOUTH.

MR. SHAPIRO: I'LL SHOW YOU THE TRANSCRIPT.

MS. CLARK: PLEASE DO. I WILL TELL YOU THIS, YOUR HONOR. A SEARCH WARRANT IS NOT RELEVANT TO A TRIAL. YOU KNOW, THAT IS A PRETRIAL ISSUE THAT IS LITIGATED BEFORE A COURT TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE, WHICH ONCE THE COURT DETERMINES IS ADMISSIBLE OR NOT ADMISSIBLE, END OF LINE. WE DON'T GO BACK BEFORE THE JURY AND TALK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE SEARCH WAS REASONABLE OR UNREASONABLE OR IN OR WITHOUT THE 4TH AMENDMENT. THAT IS NOT WITHIN THEIR PROVINCE.

THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY WAIT, MISS CLARK? THE PROBLEM IS, IT IS A STATEMENT MADE UNDER OATH TO A JUDGE. SO IT IS A PRIOR STATEMENT. AND IF THAT STATEMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THEIR TESTIMONY HERE OR IS CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE, THEN THEY ARE ENTITLED TO GO AFTER THAT AS IMPEACHMENT.

MS. CLARK: NO.

THE COURT: THE FACT THAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER MADE STATEMENTS THAT ARE NOW WE KNOW TO BE UNTRUE --

MS. CLARK: THAT WE NOW KNOW TO BE UNTRUE IS THE VERY ISSUE. AT THE TIME HE WROTE IT, THAT'S THE IMPORTANT THING; WAS HE MISREPRESENTING IT AT TRIAL. AND YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT. AT THE TIME, HE BELIEVED THAT BASED ON WHAT HE SAW. HOWEVER, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT OUT OF IT BECAUSE HIS DIRECT TESTIMONY DOESN'T GO INTO THAT. IF IT DID, THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY. THEN YOU HAVE GROUNDS FOR ADMISSIBILITY. YOU DON'T HAVE THAT HERE. YOU HAVE SOMEBODY TESTIFYING TO WHAT HE SAW, WHAT HE OBSERVED AND NO STATEMENTS AS TO WHETHER THE TRIP WAS PLANNED OR UNPLANNED OR NO STATEMENT AS TO WHETHER IT WAS HUMAN BLOOD OR ANY OTHER KIND OF BLOOD ON THE DOOR. YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SET UP FOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS. SO THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY BASIC -- THE ONLY VALID GROUND FOR GETTING IN THE STATEMENTS FROM THE SEARCH WARRANT, AND IT DOESN'T EXIST. SO NOW YOU'RE GOING TO ASK TO -- YOU ARE GOING TO SAY COUNSEL IS ALLOWED TO SET UP HIS OWN IMPEACHMENT. COUNSEL IS NOT ALLOWED TO SET UP HIS OWN IMPEACHMENT BY GOING INTO AREAS THAT ARE IRRELEVANT AND BEYOND THE SCOPE. YOU CAN'T OPEN YOUR OWN DOOR.

MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT.

MS. CLARK: YOU CAN'T OPEN YOUR OWN DOOR. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. YOUR HONOR, YOU CAN NOT OPEN YOUR OWN DOOR TO GO INTO TANGENTIAL AREAS OF IMPEACHMENT. IF HE HAD TESTIFIED ON DIRECT CONTRARY TO WHAT HE PUT IN HIS SEARCH WARRANT, THAT WOULD BE VALID IMPEACHMENT. HE HAS NOT. AND THE FACT THAT IT WAS LEARNED AT SOME LATER POINT DUE TO DEVELOPING INVESTIGATION, THAT SOME OF WHAT HE BELIEVED WAS INACCURATE, THAT DOESN'T IMPEACH HIM, SHOULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE FOR THAT PURPOSE. A LOT OF OFFICERS IN THE BEGINNING OF INVESTIGATIONS, YOUR HONOR, BELIEVE CERTAIN THINGS BASED ON WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS THEY HAVE AT HAND. LATER ON, THE INVESTIGATION TAKES THEM ANOTHER WAY. IS THAT IMPEACHING, TO SAY THAT THEY KNEW AT POINT A LESS THAN THEY KNEW AT POINT B? ABSOLUTELY NOT, OR EVERY OFFICER OUT THERE WOULD BE IMPEACHED. AND TO ALLOW HIM TO GO INTO IMPEACHMENT BASED ON THE SEARCH WARRANT ON AN ISSUE NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COURT IS OPENING IT UP WAY PAST THE SCOPE OF DIRECT AND IS IRRELEVANT, IMPROPER IMPEACHMENT, AND I WOULD LIKE THE CHANCE TO WRITE POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IF THE COURT IS INCLINED TO PERMIT THIS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S VERY INAPPROPRIATE AND TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THE OFFICER'S EITHER CREDIBILITY OR HIS TESTIMONY.

MR. SHAPIRO: AS AN OFFER OF PROOF, WE WILL PROVE THROUGH THIS OFFICER THAT HE HAD THAT INFORMATION BEFORE HE WROTE THE WARRANT AND THE INFORMATION WAS, AT A MINIMUM, RECKLESS AND PROBABLY FALSE BASED ON HIS OWN --

MS. CLARK: IT IS NOT THE PROVINCE OF THIS JURY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A SEARCH WARRANT IS VALID. IT IS THE PROVINCE OF THIS JURY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS WITH HIS TRIAL TESTIMONY THAT WOULD IMPACT ON HIS CREDIBILITY; AND THERE IS NOT.

MR. SHAPIRO: I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING SHE HAS SAID AND THAT'S EXACTLY THE WAY WE ARE GOING TO PORTRAY IT, INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS WITH HIS TRIAL TESTIMONY AND PRIOR TESTIMONY.

MS. CLARK: CERTAINLY NOT BASED ON THE FACT THAT LATER INVESTIGATION TURNED UP MORE INFORMATION.

MR. SHAPIRO: NO. WE ARE GOING TO PROVE THAT EARLIER INVESTIGATION TURNED UP MORE INVESTIGATION. AND ALSO, MR. BAILEY HAS SUGGESTED THAT IF AN OFFICER MAKES A FALSE REPRESENTATION TO GET A SEARCH WARRANT, THAT SHOWS BIAS.

THE COURT: WELL, MISS CLARK, THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT APPEARED OBVIOUS TO ME AS A PROBLEM AT TRIAL WHEN I RULED AT THE 1538 THAT THE STATEMENTS WERE MADE WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH IF YOU RECALL.

MS. CLARK: I RECALL. WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THOSE STATEMENTS IN TRIAL?

THE COURT: NO. YOU'RE ASKING FOR TIME TO WRITE POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THOSE STATEMENTS SHOULD COME IN TO IMPEACH DETECTIVE VANNATTER, CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: CORRECT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ISN'T THAT AN ISSUE THAT WAS RED FLAGGED AS A PROBLEM WITH THIS WITNESS MONTHS AGO?

MS. CLARK: NO, BECAUSE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ISSUE A SEARCH WARRANT AND THE MANNER IN WHICH A SEARCH WARRANT IS WRITTEN IS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE A JURY. THAT'S A PRETRIAL MATTER.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, PUT THAT OUT OF YOUR MIND. JUST KEEP IN MIND THIS IS A SWORN STATEMENT UNDER OATH THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE STATE OF THE FACTS.

MS. CLARK: YOU KNOW SOMETHING? THAT IS NOT THE REAL ISSUE. THE REAL ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT HE KNEW AT THE TIME HE WROTE THE WARRANT AND --

THE COURT: OKAY. THEN WE AGREE WITH THAT. DO WE AGREE WITH THAT?

MS. CLARK: WELL, I THINK THAT WE'RE CONSTRUING THAT DIFFERENTLY. I'M SAYING --

THE COURT: HOLD ON. LET'S ASSUME ARNELLE SIMPSON AND CATHY RANDA TOLD OR CATHY RANDA TOLD THE DETECTIVES THAT HE IS IN CHICAGO FOR A HERTZ MEETING, THAT IT WAS -- ARRANGEMENTS HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY MADE, "HE'S STAYING AT A PARTICULAR HOTEL, HERE'S HIS HOTEL NUMBER." ALL RIGHT. THAT IS DIFFERENT OR CONTRARY TO VANNATTER'S STATEMENT IN THE SEARCH WARRANT WHICH WAS DONE LATER, THAT THIS WAS AN UNSCHEDULED TRIP TO CHICAGO.

MS. CLARK: THERE'S ONLY ONE PROBLEM.

THE COURT: WAIT. THEN FUNG'S PRESUMPTIVE TESTS FOR BLOOD ON THE BRONCO WAS A PRESUMPTIVE TEST. THAT'S ALL IT WAS. IT IS NOT A TEST THAT IS POSITIVE FOR HUMAN BLOOD, CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: CORRECT.

THE COURT: AND THAT WAS KNOWN BEFORE HE WROTE THE SEARCH WARRANT, CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: CORRECT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I THOUGHT OF THOSE TWO. WHAT ELSE DO YOU HAVE?

MR. SHAPIRO: THOSE ARE THE TWO.

THE COURT: THOSE ARE THE TWO.

MS. CLARK: THE PROBLEM WITH IT IS, NUMBER ONE, DETECTIVE VANNATTER DID NOT SPEAK TO CATHY RANDA. ANOTHER OFFICER SPOKE TO CATHY RANDA AND HE GOT HIS INFORMATION SECOND - OR THIRD HAND. OKAY. SO THAT'S NUMBER ONE. THE PROBLEM, YOU HAVE TO LAY THE FOUNDATION FOR AN INCONSISTENCY. THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. FURTHERMORE, IT'S WHAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER KNEW AND UNDERSTOOD AT THE TIME HE WROTE THE WARRANT. THAT'S THE ISSUE. NOT WHETHER LATER INVESTIGATION TURNED OUT TO BE DIFFERENT OR OTHERWISE. THAT HAPPENS IN EVERY CASE. WHEN DETECTIVE VANNATTER WROTE THE WARRANT, HE BELIEVES CERTAIN THINGS TO BE TRUE BASED ON WHAT HE KNEW. BUT ALL OF THAT IS AN ISSUE FOR THE COURT TO DETERMINE, NOT FOR THE TRIAL JURY TO DETERMINE. SINCE WHEN DO THEY GO BACK AND DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS IN THE SEARCH WARRANT. NOW, THE NUMBER ONE THING, ON DIRECT, WE HAVE NOT ELICITED ANY INFORMATION ABOUT SEEKING OF A SEARCH WARRANT, WRITING OF A SEARCH WARRANT OR ANYTHING ABOUT THAT, OKAY.

NUMBER TWO, NONE OF THE STATEMENTS HE HAS GIVEN IN DIRECT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT HE WROTE IN THE WARRANT OR INCONSISTENT WITH THE STATE OF EVIDENCE AS WE KNOW IT TO BE. SO WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS AN ATTEMPT TO IMPEACH HIM WITH INFORMATION THAT WAS USED AT THE RELEVANT POINT IN TIME, WHICH HE DID NOT HAVE, REGARDING A SEARCH WARRANT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PLACED IN ISSUE IN HIS DIRECT TESTIMONY, TO IMPEACH HIM WITH TESTIMONY THAT IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH HIS DIRECT OR EVEN HIS CROSS-EXAMINATION TESTIMONY THUS FAR; AND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, DEFENSE NOW GETS TO EXCEED THE SCOPE OF DIRECT. THAT'S NUMBER ONE OBJECTION. NUMBER TWO, DEFENSE GETS TO --

THE COURT: ISN'T THAT OBJECTION LONG SINCE WAIVED SINCE WE ALREADY HAD 20 QUESTIONS ON THAT?

MS. CLARK: NO. WE HAVE NOT HAD 20 QUESTIONS ON THE SEARCH WARRANT.

THE COURT: NOT 20. BUT -- MILD EXAGGERATION, BUT WE'VE HAD HALF A DOZEN QUESTIONS ALREADY.

MS. CLARK: WE NEVER HAD ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SEARCH WARRANT, NEVER, THAT HE WENT --

THE COURT: NOT THE CONTENT OF THE SEARCH WARRANT.

MS. CLARK: WELL, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ARGUING HERE, CONTENT, NOT THE FACT THAT HE GOT ONE. EVERYBODY KNOWS HE GOT A WARRANT. HE HAD TO GET INTO THE HOUSE SOMEHOW.

THE COURT: WELL, MISS CLARK, WEREN'T THESE ISSUES SORT OF RED FLAGGED? WEREN'T YOU CONCERNED ABOUT DETECTIVE VANNATTER TESTIFYING BECAUSE OF THOSE PROBLEMS?

MS. CLARK: NO, I WAS NOT, BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW IS THAT DIRECT TESTIMONY IS WHAT GUIDES AND DEFINES THE PERIMETERS OF CROSS. AND IF THEY SOUGHT TO --

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, WAIT. BACK WHEN WE DID THE SEARCH WARRANT MOTIONS, THE 1538.5, WASN'T THIS A BIG ISSUE AND DIDN'T THAT CAUSE YOU SOME CONCERN, WHEN DETECTIVE VANNATTER TESTIFIES THAT THERE'S A SWORN STATEMENT UNDER OATH THAT APPEARS TO CONTAIN INACCURACIES?

MS. CLARK: NO.

THE COURT: THAT DOESN'T CONCERN --

MS. CLARK: NO. THAT'S A PRETRIAL ISSUE WE LITIGATED BEFORE, YOUR HONOR. IT GAVE ME CONCERN THAT YOUR HONOR HAD THE FEELINGS THAT IT DID, YOU DID ABOUT DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND THE SEARCH WARRANT. THAT DID GIVE ME CAUSE FOR CONCERN. BUT THAT A JURY WAS GOING TO HEAR ABOUT THAT -- WHY SHOULD A JURY EVER HEAR ABOUT A COURT'S RULING ON A PRETRIAL MOTION LIKE A 1538.8. I'VE NEVER HEARD OF SUCH A THING.

THE COURT: THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO HEAR. THEY'RE GOING TO HEAR THAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER MADE STATEMENTS LONG AGO THAT TURNED OUT NOT TO BE TRUE. THOSE TWO, CORRECT?

MR. SHAPIRO: CORRECT.

THE COURT: ANY MORE?

MR. SHAPIRO: NO.

MS. CLARK: AND THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS, THE ONLY WAY THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS IN THE DEFENSE CASE. THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT STATEMENTS ARE IRRELEVANT. THE DETECTIVE HAS, FIRST OF ALL, NOT EVEN GONE INTO UNEXPECTED FLIGHT OR THE EXPECTED FLIGHT OR THE BLOOD ON THE BRONCO, WHICH I WILL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, BLOOD -- THAT ISSUE ABOUT HUMAN BLOOD IS ONE OF THE STUPIDEST ISSUES I'VE EVER HEARD RAISED IN A COURT OF LAW. AND I'VE HEARD SOME STUPID ONES. I MEAN THAT'S ONE OF THOSE REASONABLE INFERENCES THAT ANY COP SHOULD BE MAKING. THEY'RE NOT EVEN GOING TO PAUSE OVER THAT, WHOSE BLOOD IS GOING TO BE ON THE DOOR HANDLE OF A CAR. THAT'S RIDICULOUS. BUT, NUMBER TWO, TO IMPEACH HIM WITH THE FACT THAT HE UNDERSTOOD A CERTAIN SET OF FACTS TO BE TRUE THAT LATER TURN OUT NOT TO BE TRUE WHICH DID NOT CAUSE THE COURT TO INVALIDATE THE ENTIRE WARRANT -- IF YOU RECALL, EVEN IN YOUR -- IN THE WORSE POSSIBLE BLUSH, YOU REMOVE IT, YOU EXCISE IT, YOU DETERMINE IT TO HAVE BEEN WILLFULLY FALSE, WHICH IS THE ONLY REASON FOR ITS EXISTENCE, AND YOU STILL HAVE A VALID WARRANT. SO EVEN IF YOU TAKE OUT THE PART THAT WAS NOT -- THAT IS NOW LATER DETERMINED DO BE INACCURATE, YOU STILL HAVE A VALID WARRANT. SO HOW TANGENTIAL ARE WE GOING TO GET ON CROSS HERE? HE MADE A STATEMENT THAT YOU FIND TO BE IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH, WHICH I STILL DISPUTE. I DON'T THINK THAT THE COURT HAD THE RECORD TO DO THAT. WE DIDN'T CALL THE OFFICER TO THE STAND TO DO THAT. NEVERTHELESS, YOU MADE YOUR FINDING. BUT WAS IT MATERIAL ENOUGH TO KILL THE WARRANT? NO, IT WASN'T. SO WHY IS IT NOW MATERIAL ENOUGH TO GO INTO ON CROSS-EXAMINATION?

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, MR. BAILEY.

MR. DARDEN: THAT'S EXTREMELY RUDE.

THE COURT: DON'T YOU THINK IT'S MILDLY RUDE TO WALK OUT OF COUNSEL'S ARGUMENT?

MR. COCHRAN: I WAS TRYING TO SAY SOMETHING TO COUNSEL.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK. SORRY TO DISRUPT YOU. I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS EXTREMELY RUDE FOR THEM TO DO THAT.

MS. CLARK: I DID TOO, BUT I'M USED TO IT. WITH RESPECT TO THE DETECTIVE'S ASSERTIONS THAT -- I MEAN, EVEN IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT RECKLESS DISREGARD, YOU EXCISE, YOU STILL HAVE --

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, HOLD ON. TIME OUT. YOU ARGUE THIS SO STRENUOUSLY AND SO VIGOROUSLY. DO YOU HAVE A CASE?

MS. CLARK: WELL, LET ME GO GET THEM. LET ME DO THAT. THAT'S ALL I AM ASKING FOR A CHANCE TO DO.

THE COURT: GIVE ME A CASE BECAUSE WE'RE IN THAT NEVER-NEVER LAND WHERE IT SEEMS SO CLEAR TO ME THAT THEY GET TO DO IT AND YOU ARE ARGUING SO VIGOROUSLY THAT I'M CRAZY, THAT IF YOU'VE GOT A CASE THAT TELLS ME I AM WRONG, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, PERHAPS I COULD JUST INTERJECT A THOUGHT HERE. THE INFORMATION THAT VANNATTER HAD AT THE TIME HE PRESENTED THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS CLEARLY THAT O.J. SIMPSON HAD LEFT ON A FLIGHT TO CHICAGO FOR HERTZ CORPORATION. HE PUT THAT IN HIS OWN HANDWRITING, IN HIS ONLY NOTE THAT HE TOOK IN THIS ENTIRE CASE WHEN HE DEBRIEFED KATO KAELIN AT 6:00 A.M. HERE IS A COPY OF THE STATEMENT. I THINK WE CAN SHORTEN IT, THIS ARGUMENT.

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE SOME STUFF TO DANCE AROUND SO MARCIA CAN GET A CASE?

MR. SHAPIRO: NOT REALLY. I'VE ALREADY BEEN TOLD I'M BORING THE JURY.

MR. DARDEN: AND I MEANT IT WHEN I TOLD HIM THAT.

THE COURT: MARCIA?

MS. CLARK: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: GO GET YOUR CASE.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

(THE IN CAMERA PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, MARCH 20, 1995 2:20 P.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED, MS. CLARK NOT BEING PRESENT.)

(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

(CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL PARTIES, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MISS CLARK, ARE PRESENT. MR. DARDEN, DID YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMUNICATE WITH MISS CLARK?

MR. DARDEN: WE SENT SOMEONE TO GET THE REPORTS DIRECTLY.

THE COURT: APPARENTLY COUNSEL HAVE AGREED THAT WE WILL FORGE AHEAD AND THAT THE ISSUES THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING -- THE PROSECUTION CHALLENGE TO THE ADMISSIBILITY, THAT TESTIMONY WILL ALLOW MISS CLARK SOME TIME OVER THE EVENING HOURS TO CONCLUDE THAT RESEARCH. MR. DARDEN, I TAKE IT YOU WISH TO AWAIT MISS CLARK'S --

MR. DARDEN: WHY DON'T WE.

THE COURT: -- ARRIVAL? I WOULD LIKE TO PUT IN AT LEAST AN HOUR TONIGHT WITH THE JURY.

MR. DARDEN: WELL --

THE COURT: SO DO YOU WISH TO -- I SUGGEST WE WAIT FOR MISS CLARK.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

(MS. CLARK ENTERS THE COURTROOM.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: IN OUR DISCUSSIONS AFTER YOU LEFT TO DO SOME RESEARCH ON THAT ISSUE WE WERE DISCUSSING IN CHAMBERS, MR. SHAPIRO SUGGESTED THAT HE WOULD ALTER HIS ORDER OF EXAMINATION AND WE WILL TAKE THAT MATTER UP FIRST THING TOMORROW.

MS. CLARK: GREAT, GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE COURT: BUT I WOULD LIKE TO PUT IN AT LEAST AN HOUR OR SO, GET AS MUCH DONE AS WE CAN THIS AFTERNOON. WE ARE GOING TO GO PAST THE THREE O'CLOCK HOUR.

MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE? ANY OTHER SURPRISES? ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAGAZINE, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE NOW BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE.

PHILIP VANNATTER, THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE NOON RECESS, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, DETECTIVE. YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. MR. SHAPIRO, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MR. SHAPIRO:

Q: DETECTIVE VANNATTER, OVER THE NOON HOUR YOU WERE REQUESTED TO FIND YOUR NOTES OF THE ACTIVITIES THAT TOOK PLACE AT BUNDY AND ROCKINGHAM ON THE 12TH THROUGH THE 13TH OF JUNE. HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO LOCATE THOSE NOTES?

A: I DIDN'T REALIZE I WAS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT, BUT AS FAR AS ACTUAL PHYSICAL NOTES, THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER THAN THE PARTIAL STATEMENT I WAS GOING ON, KATO KAELIN.

Q: AND THAT CONSISTS OF TWO PARAGRAPHS?

A: APPROXIMATELY, YEAH.

Q: AND THAT IS THE EXTENT OF WHAT WAS -- WHAT TOOK PLACE AS FAR AS RECORDING INFORMATION BY YOU?

A: I DIRECTED OTHER INFORMATION BE RECORDED, BUT YES, THAT IS TRUE.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU WENT THROUGH YOUR WALK-THROUGH AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE, YOU TOLD US THAT TOOK APPROXIMATELY TEN MINUTES?

A: YEAH, YEAH, APPROXIMATELY TEN MINUTES, TEN TO FIFTEEN MINUTES.

Q: YOU TESTIFIED TEN MINUTES ON YOUR DIRECT EXAMINATION YESTERDAY. ARE YOU MORE COMFORTABLE WITH TEN TO FIFTEEN MINUTES?

A: THAT IS APPROXIMATION, TEN.

Q: YOU WEREN'T KEEPING ANY LOG RECORDS OF THE TIME YOU ENTERED THE ACTUAL SCENE AND LEFT?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: DID YOU CHECK IN WITH SOMEBODY AT THE BUNDY ADDRESS WHO WAS KEEPING SUCH TIME RECORDS?

A: WHEN I ARRIVED THERE?

Q: WHEN YOU ARRIVED AND WHEN YOU WALKED THROUGH, YES.

A: I SIGNED IN ON THE CRIME SCENE LOG WHEN I ARRIVED, YES.

Q: WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE PROPER TO MAINTAIN IN THE CRIME SCENE LOG, HOW LONG YOU SPENT INSIDE THE CRIME SCENE?

A: NO.

Q: HOW LONG DID DETECTIVE LANGE SPEND INSIDE THE CRIME SCENE?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: IN HIS WALK-THROUGH?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS ABOUT FIFTEEN MINUTES, APPROXIMATELY FIFTEEN MINUTES.

Q: HE WAS THERE A LITTLE LONGER THAN YOU?

A: YES.

Q: YOU WERE NOT ACCOMPANYING HIM AT THAT TIME?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: YOU STAYED OUTSIDE ON BUNDY AND DOROTHY?

A: YES.

Q: AND AFTER HE FINISHED HIS WALK-THROUGH, DID YOU THEN IMMEDIATELY GO TO ROCKINGHAM?

A: IT WAS WITHIN A FEW MINUTES. WE LEFT THERE AT APPROXIMATELY FIVE O'CLOCK THAT MORNING, YES.

Q: SO --

A: WE DISCUSSED IT BEFORE WE LEFT.

Q: HE CAME OUT AND YOU DISCUSSED IT A FEW MINUTES WITH HIM AS TO WHAT HE SAW?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEN THE DECISION WAS MADE TO GO MAKE THE NOTIFICATION?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU LEFT IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, ACCORDING TO THE LOGS, DETECTIVE LANGE ARRIVED AT 4:25 IN THE MORNING?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND SO IF HE DID A 15-MINUTE WALK-THROUGH, THAT WOULD BE ABOUT 4:40, CORRECT?

A: IF HE IMMEDIATELY WENT ON THE WALK-THROUGH. I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT WAS THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS.

Q: WELL, HOW LONG DID HE WAIT BEFORE HE WENT ON THE WALK-THROUGH, THAT YOU RECALL?

A: I REALLY COULDN'T ANSWER THAT. I REALLY DON'T KNOW.

Q: WEREN'T YOU CONCERNED WITH TRYING TO GET THIS THING GOING AND START YOUR INVESTIGATION?

A: THAT IS WHAT WE DID, YES.

Q: DON'T YOU NOW HAVE ABOUT TWENTY MINUTES UNACCOUNTED FOR WHERE NOTHING IS BEING DONE WHILE YOU AND YOUR PARTNER ARE THERE?

A: I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.

Q: WELL, IF YOU ARRIVED -- IF LANGE, ACCORDING TO THE CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD, ARRIVED AT 4:25, DID A 15-MINUTE WALK-THROUGH, SPENT A FEW MINUTES BEFORE AND A FEW MINUTES AFTER, LET'S SAY EVEN THAT WOULD MAKE IT 4:45 AND THERE IS FIFTEEN MINUTES BEFORE YOU LEAVE, WAS THERE AN INVESTIGATION THAT YOU PEOPLE WERE DOING DURING THAT FIFTEEN MINUTES AT BUNDY?

A: I THINK PART OF THE INVESTIGATION IS MYSELF AND MY PARTNER CONVERSING SO WE -- SO WE KNOW WHAT WE HAVE AND SO WE SORT OF UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON AT THAT POINT.

Q: AND I TAKE IT YOU NOTIFIED A CRIMINALIST AT THAT POINT BECAUSE YOU NOW HAD DETERMINED IT WAS A BLOODY CRIME SCENE, DID YOU NOT?

A: NOT AT THAT POINT, NO.

Q: AND YOU NOTIFIED THE CORONER BECAUSE YOU WANTED TO CLEARLY ASCERTAIN THE TIME OF DEATH?

A: NOT AT THAT POINT.

Q: AND YOU CALLED FOR A PHOTOGRAPHER TO VIDEOTAPE THE ENTIRE CRIME SCENE IN THE MOST UNDISTURBED WAY, DID YOU NOT?

A: A PHOTOGRAPHER WAS THERE WHEN I GOT THERE.

Q: AND DID YOU DIRECT THE PHOTOGRAPHER TO TAKE AN OVERALL VIEW OF THE COMPLETE PATTERN OF ALL THE FOOTWEAR IMPRESSIONS THAT YOU HAD SEEN?

A: I BELIEVE MY PARTNER DID THAT.

Q: AND WAS THAT DONE?

A: WAS THAT DONE?

Q: YEAH. DID THE PHOTOGRAPHER DO THAT, FOLLOW THOSE ORDERS?

A: TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, YES.

Q: AND SO YOU HAVE SEEN A PHOTOGRAPH THAT SHOWS THE ENTIRE PATHWAY WITH ALL THE FOOTPRINTS THAT YOU INTEND TO TALK ABOUT IN THIS CASE?

A: I BELIEVE IT DOES, YES.

Q: AND DID YOU CALL FOR SOMEONE TO VIDEOTAPE THE ENTIRE CRIME SCENE?

A: NO, SIR, I DID NOT.

Q: AND DID YOU CALL FOR A LIGHT TRUCK TO ILLUMINATE THE AREA SO THAT YOU COULD BETTER ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT THERE MIGHT BE ANOTHER MATCHING GLOVE TO THE ONE THAT YOU HAD SEEN BY THE BODY OF RONALD GOLDMAN?

A: I DID NOT.

Q: AND DID YOU CAUSE A GRID SEARCH TO BE DONE OF THE LOCATION TO LOOK FOR A MATCHING OR SECOND GLOVE AT THAT LOCATION?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: AS A DETECTIVE, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IT IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO PRIORITIZE WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO REGARDING A CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION?

A: YES.

Q: SOME THINGS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHERS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YEAH. WELL, THEY ARE ALL IMPORTANT. THAT IS A GENERAL STATEMENT. EVERYTHING IS IMPORTANT.

Q: WELL, YOU CAN'T DO EVERYTHING AT THE SAME TIME, CAN YOU?

A: NO. I WISH I COULD.

Q: SO THEREFORE YOU HAVE TO PRIORITIZE, DON'T YOU?

A: ACCORDING TO WHAT THE SCENE IS, YES. EACH ONE IS DIFFERENT. EACH ONE HAS DIFFERENT PRIORITIES.

Q: AND IF YOU HAD TO PRIORITIZE BETWEEN NOTIFYING THE EX-HUSBAND OF A VICTIM AND BEGINNING A CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION, WHAT ONE OF THE TWO WOULD YOU FEEL WOULD BE MORE IMPORTANT?

A: PUTTING IT JUST IN THOSE TERMS WITH THE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES LEFT OUT, I WOULD SAY START THE CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION, BUT THERE WERE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT CAME INTO PLAY IN THIS.

Q: AND HOW MANY OFFICERS WOULD YOU USE TO MAKE A DEATH NOTIFICATION, PERSONALLY?

A: THAT WOULD DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Q: AND IS THERE ANY CRITERIA AS TO WHO CAN MAKE A DEATH NOTIFICATION WITHIN THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?

A: AS TO WHO?

Q: YES.

A: I WOULD THINK ANY SWORN PERSONNEL COULD.

Q: NOW, COMMANDER BUSHEY IS THE COMMANDER OF THE WEST BUREAU; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: HE IS THE ASSISTANT COMMANDER, I BELIEVE, OF THE WEST BUREAU.

Q: AND WEST BUREAU DOES NOT ENCOMPASS THE ROBBERY/HOMICIDE DIVISION, DOES IT?

A: NO.

Q: IT DOES NOT, I SHOULD SAY?

A: IT DOES NOT.

Q: AND THAT ORDER THAT YOU HEARD ABOUT SECONDHAND WAS FROM DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WHO WAS TOLD BY COMMANDER BUSHEY THAT HE SHOULD MAKE A PERSONAL NOTIFICATION; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND DURING THE HOUR AND FIVE MINUTES THAT DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WAS WAITING FOR YOU, DID YOU ASK HIM IF HE HAD GONE TO MAKE A PERSONAL NOTIFICATION?

A: HE TOLD ME THAT HE HADN'T.

Q: DID YOU ASK HIM WHY HE DIDN'T, WHY HE WAS -- JUST DECIDED TO GO STAND OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET FOR AN HOUR AND FIVE MINUTES?

A: NO.

Q: ISN'T THAT SOMETHING THAT COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN DONE BY DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE?

A: THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE, BUT THAT WOULD NOT BE THE PROPER WAY TO DO IT, WITHOUT US BEING PRESENT.

Q: WHAT ABOUT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, COULD HE HAVE GONE WITH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS TO MAKE A DEATH NOTIFICATION?

A: OF COURSE HE COULD HAVE, BUT IT STILL WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THE PROPER WAY WITHOUT US BEING THERE.

Q: WHAT ABOUT LIEUTENANT ROGERS, WHO IS YOUR SUPERVISOR, COULD HE HAVE GONE?

A: CERTAINLY.

Q: HE IS NOT A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATOR, IS HE?

A: NO, HE'S A SUPERVISOR.

Q: HE IS NOT AN INVESTIGATOR, IS HE?

A: HE IS A LIEUTENANT.

Q: IS HE AN INVESTIGATOR?

A: BY RANK OR --

Q: IS IT HIS JOB TO INVESTIGATE HOMICIDE SCENES?

A: NO, IT IS HIS JOB TO SUPERVISE.

Q: SO HE, FROM YOUR BUREAU, COULD HAVE GONE AND MADE THE NOTIFICATION?

A: CERTAINLY.

Q: AND THE 25 OTHER PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE COULD HAVE GONE TO MAKE THE NOTIFICATION?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND AS FAR AS DIRECTIONS TO THAT LOCATION, ONCE YOU WERE AT BUNDY, WOULD YOU HAVE ANY DIFFICULTY IF SOMEBODY THERE SAID THE LOCATION THAT YOU WANT TO GO TO IS AT ROCKINGHAM AND SUNSET, TAKE SUNSET ABOUT TWO MILES AND TURN RIGHT ON ROCKINGHAM THREE BLOCKS? WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO FOLLOW THOSE DIRECTIONS?

A: ME PERSONALLY?

Q: YES.

A: YES.

Q: SO YOU DIDN'T NEED ANYONE TO TAKE YOU TO THAT LOCATION, DID YOU?

A: WELL, YEAH, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T KNOW WHERE THE LOCATION WAS AND WE THOUGHT IT WOULD SPEED UP THE PROCESS, PLUS WE NEEDED THEIR ASSISTANCE.

Q: WELL, LET'S TALK ABOUT --

A: AS I EXPLAINED BEFORE.

Q: -- JUST WHERE THE LOCATION WAS. YOU ALREADY CONCEDED THAT IF SOMEBODY TOLD YOU TO GO WEST ON SUNSET TO ROCKINGHAM AND TURN RIGHT, GO UP THREE BLOCKS, YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FOLLOW THAT AND FIND THAT, WOULD YOU NOT?

A: CERTAINLY I COULD HAVE.

Q: AND IT IS NOT A DIFFICULT LOCATION TO FIND, IS IT?

A: NO.

Q: NOT HIDDEN IN ANY WAY?

A: NO.

Q: AND AT THE TIME YOU ARRIVED YOU HAD, FOR THE FIRST TIME, MET DETECTIVES PHILLIPS AND FUHRMAN; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU WERE THERE TO NOTIFY THEM THAT -- OR TO OFFICIALLY TAKE OVER BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN NOTIFIED THEY HAD BEEN RELIEVED?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND IN POLICE PRACTICE, I TAKE IT THAT THIS IS A BIG CASE? WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

A: THAT IS A VERY SUBJECTIVE TERM. IT IS A BIG CASE BECAUSE THE PRESS AND THE MEDIA HAS MADE IT A BIG CASE. YOU WILL -- ALL HOMICIDES TO ME ARE BIG CASES.

Q: AND THAT TO BE INVOLVED IN A CASE LIKE THIS, FROM A DETECTIVE'S POINT OF VIEW, IS A FEATHER IN YOUR CAP, IS IT NOT?

A: NOT IN MY CAP, NO, NO.

Q: AND TO BE RELIEVED FROM A CASE LIKE THIS, IT WOULD BE A TREMENDOUS DISAPPOINTMENT FOR A YOUNG DETECTIVE, WOULD IT NOT?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: YOU HAVE ALSO TOLD US THAT YOU WENT OVER -- DID ANYBODY TELL YOU YOU SHOULD GO TO ROCKINGHAM TO CHECK ON THE WELFARE OF THE CHILDREN?

A: THAT QUESTION -- I DON'T FOLLOW THAT QUESTION. THE CHILDREN'S WELFARE WAS NOT -- THE CHILDREN WERE AT WEST L.A. STATION.

Q: DID ANYBODY TELL YOU TO GO TO ROCKINGHAM BECAUSE THE CHILDREN'S WELFARE WAS AT ISSUE?

A: NO. THAT WAS A DETERMINATION THAT MYSELF AND MY PARTNER MADE.

Q: AND SO YOU DID DETERMINE, WITH ALL THE OFFICERS IN THE JUVENILE DIVISION, ALL THE OFFICERS AT WEST LOS ANGELES, ALL OF THE MEMBERS AVAILABLE TO TAKE CARE OF JUVENILES, YOU WERE GOING TO TAKE IT UPON YOURSELF TO PRIORITIZE AND PUT THAT INTEREST FIRST? IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY?

A: THAT WAS ONE OF MY PRIORITIES, ABSOLUTELY.

Q: YOU ARE NOT A JUVENILE OFFICER?

A: NO, BUT I THINK WE WENT THROUGH THIS ONCE BEFORE. I HAD TWO VERY YOUNG CHILDREN THAT HAD BEEN TAKEN FROM THEIR BED, FROM THEIR HOME, BY UNIFORM POLICE OFFICERS, AND AT A SCENE THAT THEIR MOTHER HAD BEEN MURDERED AT AND THAT IS VERY, VERY TRAUMATIC FOR ADULTS, BESIDES THINKING ABOUT MINOR CHILDREN. TO ME THESE CHILDREN ARE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT PEOPLE AND THEY HAVE TO BE CARED FOR AND TO BE SETTING IN A POLICE STATION IS A VERY TRAUMATIC THING FOR CHILDREN AND THAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME TO TRY AND GET THEM WITH FAMILY MEMBERS.

Q: AND I AGREE WITH YOU, BUT IN BALANCING THAT AGAINST THE 25 OTHER OFFICERS WHO WERE AT THE SCENE WHO COULD HAVE PERFORMED THE SAME FUNCTION AND YOU BEING THE ONLY PERSON WHO COULD ADMIT PEOPLE INTO THE CRIME SCENE, IS IT YOUR OPINION THAT OTHERS COULD HAVE EQUALLY SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENT OF TAKING CARE OF THESE YOUNG CHILDREN WHO WERE IN SUCH DESPERATE NEED OF BEING REUNITED?

A: I'M SORT OF LOST ON THE QUESTION. COULD SOMEONE ELSE HAVE DONE WHAT I DID?

Q: REGARDING THE CHILDREN?

A: CERTAINLY SOMEONE ELSE COULD HAVE.

Q: YET NO ONE ELSE, OTHER THAN LANGE AND YOURSELF, COULD HAVE ALLOWED ACCESS INTO THE CRIME SCENE?

A: AT THAT POINT I WOULD SAY NO.

Q: BUT YET YOU CHOSE TO LEAVE THE CRIME SCENE, NOT ONLY BY -- WITH YOURSELF AND WITH YOUR PARTNER, BUT WITH THE ONLY TWO OTHER INVESTIGATORS IN THE HOMICIDE AREA WHO COULD HAVE ALSO HAD SOME SEASONING REGARDING THE ENTRY AND EXIT INTO A CRIME SCENE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: SO THE SCENE IS LEFT NOW NOT TO BE INVESTIGATED AT ALL WITH THE FOUR PEOPLE WHO HAVE EXPERTISE IN HOMICIDE INVESTIGATIONS, SO YOU CAN GO DO TWO THINGS: NOTIFY THE EX-SPOUSE OF THE DEATH AND TO PROVIDE IN WEST L.A. FOR THE CARE AND COMFORT OF THE TWO YOUNG CHILDREN?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, IT IS COMPOUND.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR PURPOSE IN TAKING FOUR OFFICERS TO GO TO THE ROCKINGHAM ESTATE WAS SOLELY FOR THE NOTIFICATION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: OUR PURPOSE FOR TAKING FOUR OFFICERS WAS ACTUALLY TWO-FOLD. NO. 1, THEY COULD DIRECT US TO THE LOCATION BECAUSE FUHRMAN HAD BEEN THERE BEFORE. AND NO. 2, WE INTENDED ON THEM HELPING US WITH THE NOTIFICATION, HELPING MR. SIMPSON TO MAKE A DISPOSITION OF THE CHILDREN, FOR US TO MEET MR. SIMPSON, FOR A LATER INTERVIEW.

Q: WELL, THIS WOULDN'T BE A GOOD TIME TO ESTABLISH A RAPPORT WITH MR. SIMPSON, WOULD IT?

A: IT IS AS GOOD A TIME AS ANY TIME.

Q: SO YOU ARE GOING TO KNOCK ON THE DOOR, TELL MR. SIMPSON YOU HAVE HORRIBLE NEWS, THAT HIS EX-WIFE HAS JUST BEEN MURDERED AND PLUS WE WOULD LIKE TO GET TO KNOW YOU AND TALK ABOUT THIS SO LET'S JUST SIT DOWN AND TALK FOR AWHILE? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE TELLING US, SIR?

A: NO, WE DIDN'T INTEND TO INTERVIEW HIM THEN. WE INTENDED TO MEET HIM, GO BACK, DO THE CRIME SCENE AND SET UP A LATER INTERVIEW WITH HIM.

Q: WELL, YOU HAD ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING MR. SIMPSON WHEN YOU WENT OVER THERE, DIDN'T YOU?

A: I HAD INFORMATION. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TOLD US THAT HE HAD BEEN AT THE LOCATION BEFORE ON A 415 DISPUTE CALL, YES.

Q: AND HE TOLD YOU THAT RESULTED -- DID HE ALSO TELL YOU THAT THERE HAD BEEN PREVIOUS INCIDENTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REGARDING O.J. SIMPSON AND NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

A: HE DIDN'T TELL ME THAT, NO. HE TOLD ME HE HAD BEEN THERE ON A PREVIOUS INCIDENT.

Q: DID HE TELL YOUR PARTNER THERE HAD BEEN PREVIOUS INCIDENTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THERE COULD HAVE BEEN SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT AN '89 INCIDENT. THE MAIN -- WHAT I RECALL MOST IS HE STATED THAT HE HAD BEEN THERE ON A PREVIOUS RADIO CALL AND KNEW WHERE THE LOCATION WAS AND THAT THE RADIO CALL WAS IN REGARDS TO A 415 FAMILY DISPUTE.

Q: YOU HAVE REVIEWED THE REPORT THAT IS ENTITLED A FOLLOW-UP REPORT, HAVE YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT IS REALLY A MISNOMER BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FOLLOW UP TO ANY OTHER REPORT THAT WAS DONE BY YOU OR DETECTIVE LANGE, DOES IT?

A: MISNOMER?

Q: WHEN IT SAYS "FOLLOW-UP REPORT," DOESN'T THAT TEND TO CAUSE ONE TO TEND TO THINK THAT THERE WAS A REPORT BEFORE THIS THAT THIS FOLLOWS?

A: THERE WAS A REPORT BEFORE THAT.

Q: DONE BY YOU AND LANGE?

A: YES.

Q: AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING YOU WERE ASKED THAT QUESTION, YOU SAID THERE WASN'T. DO YOU RECALL THAT TESTIMONY?

A: NO. I DON'T RECALL SAYING THAT, NO.

MR. SHAPIRO: I WILL SHOW THAT TO YOU IN A MINUTE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: SO YOU ARE TELLING ME NOW THAT IT WAS FUHRMAN WHO GAVE YOU THE INFORMATION REGARDING THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE; IS THAT CORRECT, OR LANGE?

A: IT WAS A CONVERSATION THAT WAS HAD IN THE STREET AND I BELIEVE ALL FOUR OF US WAS THERE, AND AS I RECALL, FUHRMAN SAID SOMETHING TO PHILLIPS AND THEN -- AND I'M NOT SURE WHETHER IT WAS FUHRMAN OR PHILLIPS THAT RELAYED THE INFORMATION. MY INFORMATION WAS THAT FUHRMAN HAD BEEN THERE EARLIER.

Q: DID YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION THAT MR. SIMPSON HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN ARRESTED OR JUST THAT THEY RESPONDED TO A 415?

A: WELL, I THINK MY INFORMATION IS MR. SIMPSON WAS NEVER ARRESTED ON THAT CASE. I THINK THAT IS THE INFORMATION.

Q: AND ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT ONE OF THE REASONS THAT YOU WANTED TO LEAVE THE CRIME SCENE AND GO TO THE SIMPSON RESIDENCE WAS BECAUSE YOU HAD INFORMATION THAT THERE HAD BEEN PREVIOUS INSTANCES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND YOU IMMEDIATELY SUSPECTED THE EX-HUSBAND AS BEING THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE IN THESE CASES?

A: NO, THAT IS NOT TRUE.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS? ACTUALLY, LET ME PUT THIS UP ON THE ELMO. WE HAVE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THIS.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. DARDEN: AT ANY RATE, THERE IS AN OBJECTION.

MR. SHAPIRO: I JUST HAVE A -- I THOUGHT WE TOOK THIS UP EARLIER, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: IS THIS THE LAST SENTENCE?

MR. SHAPIRO: NO. THIS IS ON ANOTHER REPORT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I DON'T BELIEVE WE TOOK THAT UP SPECIFICALLY.

MR. SHAPIRO: ALL RIGHT. LET ME APPROACH IT ANOTHER WAY, IF HE OBJECTS TO THIS.

Q: LET ME ASK YOU THIS: YOU HAVE READ THE MURDER FOLLOW-UP REPORT, HAVE YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: ARE THERE ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN THAT REPORT?

A: ERRORS OR OMISSIONS? I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE REPORT, IF THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE ASKING ME.

Q: AND YOU STAND BY THAT REPORT, DO YOU NOT?

A: WELL, I THINK IT IS GENERAL OVERALL -- A GENERAL OVERALL VIEW OF WHAT OCCURRED, YES.

Q: WELL, IT IS MORE THAN THAT. IT IS THE ONLY RECORDATION OF WHAT YOU AND YOUR PARTNER HAVE DONE REGARDING THIS CASE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: NO.

Q: YOU WILL SHOW US LATER WHAT OTHER RECORDATIONS YOU AND YOUR PARTNER HAVE DONE?

A: WELL, I THINK I TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT THERE HAS BEEN DEATH REPORTS MADE ON BOTH VICTIMS AND MURDER REPORTS MADE A BOTH VICTIMS.

Q: I'M TALKING ABOUT THE FACTS SURROUNDING THE INVESTIGATION AND THE INFORMATION YOU HAD. ARE THERE ANY OTHER REPORTS ALONG THOSE AREAS THAT WERE DONE BY YOU OR YOUR PARTNER, SIR?

A: WELL, THERE HAS BEEN REPORTS DONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE INVESTIGATION. THERE IS THREE BOOKS FULL OF REPORTS.

Q: WELL, YOU WILL PULL THOSE FOR US, OKAY, THE ONES THAT YOU AND YOUR PARTNER HAVE DONE.

MR. DARDEN: WAS THAT A QUESTION?

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WOULD YOU DO THAT FOR US, PLEASE? THERE IS A REQUEST.

A: THERE IS THREE BOOKS FOR US.

Q: WELL, MAYBE YOU CAN DO THAT TONIGHT. LET ME DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE SECOND PARAGRAPH AND ASK YOU TO READ THAT TO YOURSELF, PLEASE.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) OKAY.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO READ THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR MEMORY AS TO WHAT DETECTIVE PHILLIPS TOLD YOU AND DETECTIVE LANGE?

A: THAT IS A POSSIBILITY THAT HE SAID THAT, YES, BUT AGAIN, MY INFORMATION IS MR. SIMPSON WAS NEVER ARRESTED ON THAT CASE.

Q: WHAT DOES YOUR REPORT INDICATE IN THAT REGARD, SIR?

A: DO YOU WANT ME TO READ IT?

Q: YEAH.

A: OKAY. THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH?

Q: WELL, LET'S READ THE PART WHERE IT HAS WHAT DETECTIVE PHILLIPS TOLD YOU.

A: "PHILLIPS STATED THAT VICTIM BROWN WAS THE EX-WIFE OF O.J. SIMPSON, A WELL-KNOWN ATHLETE ACTOR. ADDITIONALLY, PHILLIPS STATED THAT MR. SIMPSON AND VICTIM 1 HAD BEEN EMBROILED IN A PREVIOUS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATION, ONE OF THESE RESULTING IN THE ARREST OF MR. SIMPSON."

Q: YOU SAID IN A PREVIOUS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATION. IS THAT WHAT IT SAYS, SIR?

A: THAT IS WHAT THE REPORT SAYS, YES.

Q: IT DOESN'T SAY IN PREVIOUS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATIONS, PLURAL?

A: SITUATIONS, YEAH.

Q: IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SITUATION AND SITUATIONS, SIR?

A: ONE IS PLURAL AND ONE IS SINGULAR, YES.

Q: IS THERE ANY SIGNIFICANCE TO THAT IN PUTTING THAT IN A REPORT?

A: SIGNIFICANCE? I -- I DON'T KNOW -- I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THAT. APPARENTLY THAT IS REFERRING TO MORE THAN ONE INCIDENT.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: NOW, THE LOCATION THAT YOU WERE GOING TO WAS ROCKINGHAM; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM? FROM BUNDY?

A: FROM BUNDY, YES.

Q: AND YOU CAME DOWN ROCKINGHAM, AS YOU HAVE SHOWN US IN THAT NICE VIDEO THAT YOU PREPARED; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: WHAT IS THE QUESTION?

Q: YOU CAME DOWN ROCKINGHAM WHEN YOU WERE GOING TO THE HOUSE -- WHEN YOU WERE TRYING TO LOCATE THE ADDRESS OF 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM --

A: WE DROVE NORTH ON ROCKINGHAM, YES.

Q: YES, OKAY. THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

A: I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.

THE COURT: YOU GUYS HAVE TO STOP TALKING OVER EACH OTHER HERE.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR. AND WHEN YOU DROVE UP, YOU SAW A GATE AND AN ADDRESS 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM, DID YOU NOT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHY DIDN'T YOU PARK ON ROCKINGHAM?

A: I DON'T KNOW. I FOLLOWED DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND PARKED BEHIND HIM. I DON'T KNOW A REASON.

Q: I'M SORRY. DID YOU FINISH?

A: NO REASON.

Q: CLEARLY THERE WAS AN ENTRANCE ON ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES.

Q: AND CLEARLY THE FRONT DOOR FACED ROCKINGHAM?

A: WELL, I DON'T THINK I COULD TELL THAT AS I DROVE UP THE STREET. I COULDN'T SEE THE FRONT DOOR.

Q: YOU COULD SEE THE FRONT DOOR THROUGH THE GATE, COULDN'T YOU?

A: WHEN I WALKED OVER AND LOOKED, YES, BUT WHEN I WAS DRIVING UP I DIDN'T SEE IT.

Q: ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT YOU WERE GOING OVER TO ROCKINGHAM, IN ADDITION TO MAKING WHAT YOU HAVE SAID IS A NOTIFICATION, TO LOOK FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY?

A: I THINK -- I THINK IT CROSSED MY MIND -- NOT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. I THINK IT CROSSED MY MIND TO CHECK ON THE WELFARE, BECAUSE OF THE CLOSENESS OF THE SCENE AND THE VIOLENCE OF THE SCENE.

Q: THE WELFARE OF WHOM?

A: THE WELFARE OF THE OCCUPANTS OF THE HOME SINCE THERE WAS A TIE TO THE TWO LOCATIONS.

Q: AND WHO DID YOU DETERMINE WERE THE OCCUPANTS OF THE HOME?

A: WHICH HOME, SIR?

Q: THE HOME YOU WERE GOING TO CHECK ON THE WELFARE OF THE OCCUPANTS IN?

A: MR. SIMPSON'S HOME.

Q: WELL, WHO WERE THE OCCUPANTS OF THAT HOME THAT YOU WENT TO CHECK ON?

A: AT THAT POINT?

Q: YEAH.

A: ANYBODY THAT WAS THERE.

Q: WELL, DIDN'T YOU HAVE SOMETHING FIXED IN YOUR MIND? WHEN YOU SAY YOU WERE GOING TO CHECK ON THE WELFARE OF SOMEBODY, WHOSE WELFARE WERE YOU GOING TO CHECK ON, SIR?

A: MR. SIMPSON.

Q: BECAUSE YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT HIM, WEREN'T YOU?

A: I WASN'T SO MUCH CONCERNED ABOUT HIM. I WAS -- I HAD CONCERNS FOR THE CHILDREN. I WANTED TO MEET HIM. I WAS INFORMED THAT A COMMANDER OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAD ORDERED AN IN PERSON NOTIFICATION, AND I KNEW IT WAS GOING TO BE A VERY NEWSWORTHY CASE AND I THOUGHT IT BEST THAT WE MAKE A NOTIFICATION BEFORE THE PRESS DID.

Q: HAVE YOU MEMORIZED THAT RESPONSE? THAT IS THE THIRD TIME YOU HAVE GIVEN IT TO US.

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THAT LAST ANSWER.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IS THAT THE VERBATIM RESPONSE YOU GAVE AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS STILL ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. MR. SHAPIRO, WHEN I CAUTION ON YOU SOMETHING, I DON'T EXPECT THE NEXT QUESTION TO BE THE SAME THING.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I APOLOGIZE.

Q: MY QUESTION WAS, WERE YOU CONCERNED WITH THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF O.J. SIMPSON WHEN YOU WENT TO ROCKINGHAM?

A: NOT UNTIL I GOT THERE. I MEAN, THERE IS ALWAYS A CONCERN, WHEN YOU HAVE RELATIVES, BUT NOT UNTIL OTHER CRITERIA WAS MET.

Q: WELL, IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS NOTIFICATION NOW FOUR DETECTIVES ARRIVE AT ROCKINGHAM. BEFORE YOU WENT THERE, BECAUSE OF THESE CONCERNS, I TAKE IT YOU NOTIFIED THE COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT AS TO WHERE YOU WERE GOING?

A: NO.

Q: BECAUSE OF YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT WELFARE, I TAKE IT THAT YOU CALLED FOR BLACK AND WHITES TO MEET YOU THERE?

A: AFTER I GOT THERE I DID, YES.

Q: UPON ARRIVAL YOU CALLED FOR BLACK AND WHITES?

A: NO, AFTER -- AFTER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WERE MET.

Q: HOW LONG DID IT TAKE FOR YOU TO CALL FOR BLACK AND WHITES?

A: PROBABLY FIFTEEN, TWENTY MINUTES.

Q: WHAT TIME DID YOU CALL FOR THE BLACK AND WHITES?

A: I DIDN'T DO IT. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY.

Q: IS THAT RECORDED IN YOUR LOG SOMEWHERE?

A: NO.

Q: YOU TESTIFIED THAT FOR TEN TO FIFTEEN MINUTES FOUR DETECTIVES TOOK TURNS RINGING THE BUZZER TO -- THAT ACTIVATED A TELEPHONE THAT YOU COULD HEAR RINGING FROM OUTSIDE; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: AND WOULD YOU SAY THAT THAT TELEPHONE RINGS FOR ABOUT A SECOND BEFORE ANOTHER RING COMES ON?

A: WELL, I DON'T KNOW. THERE WERE FIVE OR SIX RINGS BEFORE IT STOPPED.

Q: WOULD YOU SAY THAT SINCE YOU COULD HEAR IT OUTSIDE, IT WOULD BE YOUR OPINION THAT CLEARLY SOMEBODY COULD HEAR IT INSIDE, IF SOMEBODY WAS INSIDE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WOULD YOU SAY THAT TEN TO FIFTEEN MINUTES IS A VERY LONG TIME TO RING SOMEONE?

A: AT 5:00 IN THE MORNING? I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT IS OR NOT.

Q: HAVE YOU EVER CALLED SOMEONE TO TRY TO GET SOMEONE ON THE TELEPHONE AND LET THE TELEPHONE RING FOR TEN TO FIFTEEN MINUTES?

A: I DON'T THINK SO, NO. I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.

Q: AND THE FOUR DETECTIVES ARE NOW TAKING TURNS PUSHING THIS BUZZER DEVICE ON THE GATE?

A: WELL, I THINK THERE WERE THREE OF US THAT RANG IT. I DON'T HAVE RECALL OF FUHRMAN RINGING THE BELL.

Q: NOW, FUHRMAN'S ROLE IN COMING THERE WAS PURELY TO SHOW YOU HOW TO GET THERE. IS THAT YOUR STATEMENT?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE WITNESS' TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: NO.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WAS HE COMING AS A BACK-UP UNIT FOR YOU?

A: NO.

Q: WAS HE COMING TO HELP YOU INVESTIGATE?

A: NO.

Q: WAS HE COMING TO INTRODUCE YOU TO MR. SIMPSON?

A: NO.

Q: WAS HE COMING TO HELP YOU IN THE NOTIFICATION?

A: HE WAS COMING -- WE WERE GOING TO MAKE THE NOTIFICATION AND HE WAS COMING TO ASSIST MR. SIMPSON IF HE NEEDED ASSISTANCE.

Q: AND HE HAD VOLUNTEERED FOR THAT?

A: NO. WE ASKED HIM TO ACCOMPANY US.

Q: YOU ASKED HIM TO COME WITH YOU TO HELP MR. SIMPSON IN CASE MR. SIMPSON NEEDED SOME HELP; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT WAS PART OF THE REASONING, YES.

Q: AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, WHY WAS HE COMING?

A: SAME REASON.

Q: HE WAS COMING TO SEE IF HE WOULD HELP MR. SIMPSON?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHERE IN YOUR REPORTS DID YOU INDICATE THAT THIS WAS YOUR STATE OF MIND, SIR?

A: I DON'T KNOW THAT I DID.

Q: AND WHERE IN YOUR PREVIOUS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY DID YOU INDICATE THIS WAS YOUR PREVIOUS STATE OF MIND, SIR?

A: I THINK I TESTIFIED THEY WERE THERE TO ASSIST US.

Q: AND WHERE IN YOUR PREVIOUS TESTIMONY UNDER OATH AT A PRELIMINARY HEARING DID YOU INDICATE THE REASON THEY WERE COMING WAS TO HELP MR. SIMPSON, SIR?

A: I AGAIN TESTIFIED THEY WERE THERE TO ASSIST US.

Q: AFTER RINGING THE BELL FOR TEN OR FIFTEEN MINUTES, WHICH ACTIVATED A TELEPHONE THAT YOU CLEARLY HEARD RINGING, THEN YOU DECIDED TO TRY TO CALL MR. SIMPSON ON ANOTHER TELEPHONE?

A: THAT WAS -- YES. AFTER -- AFTER NOTICING THAT THE PLACE HAD PRIVATE SECURITY, REQUESTED THAT -- THAT WE GET A TELEPHONE NUMBER FROM THEM, YES.

Q: HOW WOULD THIS ASSIST YOU IF THE TELEPHONE THAT WAS CURRENTLY RINGING WAS NOT BEING OF ANY VALUE?

A: WE WERE TRYING ANYTHING TO MAKE CONTACT WITH -- WITHIN THE RESIDENCE.

Q: AND AS A POLICEMAN DO YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO GET THE PHONE NUMBERS OF RESIDENTS OF HOMES?

A: SOMETIMES; NOT ALL THE TIME.

Q: DO YOU HAVE -- DID YOU ATTEMPT TO GET THE PHONE NUMBER OF O.J. SIMPSON THROUGH POLICE CHANNELS?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT POLICE CHANNELS DID YOU USE?

A: CONTACTED THE WATCH COMMANDER AND ASKED HIM TO CONTACT WESTEC SECURITY TO SEE IF THEY HAD A PHONE NUMBER FOR HIM.

Q: WHAT ABOUT THE TELEPHONE COMPANY? DID ANYBODY THINK OF CALLING THE TELEPHONE COMPANY?

A: WELL, IF IT IS A PUBLISHED NUMBER, YOU CAN GET IT. IF IT IS NON-PUBLISHED, YOU CANNOT GET IT.

Q: EVEN POLICEMEN CAN'T GET THAT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: SO IF YOU CALLED UP THE SUPERVISOR AT THE TELEPHONE COMPANY THAT SERVICES THAT AREA AND SAID, "THIS IS AN EMERGENCY SITUATION," IDENTIFIED YOURSELF, "WE HAVE TO GET IN TOUCH WITH MR. SIMPSON, CAN YOU GET THE PHONE NUMBER," THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HELP YOU?

A: THEY WOULD TELL YOU TO GET A SEARCH WARRANT IF IT WAS A NON-PUBLISHED NUMBER.

Q: FOR AN EMERGENCY?

A: FOR ANYTHING.

Q: AND CONTACTING WESTEC, DID YOU ASK THEM TO COME OUT TO THE LOCATION?

A: I DIDN'T CONTACT THEM. I THINK THE THRUST OF IT WAS TO ATTEMPT TO FIND OUT IF THERE WAS ANY TRAVEL PLANS AND IF -- AND IF THEY HAD A PHONE NUMBER.

Q: DID ANYBODY ASK WESTEC TO COME OUT TO THE LOCATION?

A: I DON'T KNOW THAT.

Q: DID ANYBODY CHECK WITH WESTEC AS TO WHETHER IT WAS MR. SIMPSON'S HABIT AND CUSTOM TO NOTIFY WESTEC EVERY TIME HE WENT OUT OF TOWN?

A: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

Q: YOU EVENTUALLY GOT ANOTHER NUMBER THAT RANG WITH THE SAME TYPE OF RINGING THAT YOU WERE GETTING FROM THE FRONT DOOR; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: FROM THE FRONT DOOR?

Q: WELL, FROM THE -- I'M SORRY, FROM THE BUZZER OUTSIDE THE GATE?

A: IT WAS A TELEPHONE NUMBER THAT RANG, YES.

Q: AND IT WAS THE SAME TYPE OF RING THAT YOU HEARD WHEN YOU PRESSED THE BUTTON AT THE GATE?

A: I DIDN'T MAKE THE PHONE CALL, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT WAS PROBABLY A GOOD ASSUMPTION, YES.

Q: AND ARE YOU AWARE OF GETTING A RECORDING FROM AN ANSWERING MACHINE?

A: I WAS TOLD THAT, YES.

Q: AND YOU WERE TOLD THAT THE ANSWERING MACHINE SAID, "THIS IS O.J., I'M OUT OF TOWN, I WILL BE BACK ON MONDAY"?

A: NO, I DON'T RECALL THAT. I JUST -- I WAS TOLD THAT THERE WAS AN ANSWER, SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT, "THIS IS O.J., I'M NOT HOME NOW," OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

Q: YOU TESTIFIED AT THE GRAND JURY THAT THE ONLY RESPONSE THAT CAME ON THE MACHINE WAS "O.J." DO YOU RECALL THAT TESTIMONY?

A: NO, I DON'T.

Q: DID YOU TRY TO USE ANY TYPE OF BULLHORN TO GET MR. SIMPSON'S ATTENTION?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: DID YOU TRY TO FLASH ANY LIGHTS INTO THE HOUSE TO GET HIS ATTENTION?

A: OTHER THAN SHINING MY FLASHLIGHT INTO THE DRIVEWAY, NO.

Q: REGARDING THE LIGHTING OF THE DRIVEWAY, YOU TOLD US THAT THE FRONT DOOR WAS WELL-LIT WHEN YOU ARROVE -- ARRIVED; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: NO, I DIDN'T SAY THAT.

Q: WERE THERE -- AREN'T THERE COACH LIGHTS ON THE FRONT DOOR?

A: I DON'T KNOW THAT. I RECALL A LIGHT BEING ON TOWARD THE FRONT DOOR, SOMEPLACE INSIDE THE RESIDENCE, AND THEN TOWARD THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. AND THEN AS I RECALL, THERE WAS ONE ON UPSTAIRS. IT COULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME LIGHT THAT WAS ILLUMINATING UP AND DOWN.

Q: HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU BEEN TO THAT LOCATION?

A: TWICE.

Q: HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU SEEN PHOTOGRAPHS OF THAT LOCATION?

A: SEVERAL TIMES. I DON'T KNOW.

Q: AND IT IS YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE COACH LIGHTS AT THE FRONT ENTRANCE?

A: WELL, THAT IS A POSSIBILITY. I -- I DON'T RECALL RIGHT NOW THAT THERE ARE COACH LIGHTS THERE.

Q: AND ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT THERE IS A HALOGEN STREET LIGHT AT THE ADJACENT CORNER OF ASHFORD AND ROCKINGHAM THAT COMPLETELY ILLUMINATES THE FRONT DOOR?

A: NO, THAT WOULDN'T BE TRUE. THE FRONT DOOR IS RECESSED, AS I RECALL. THERE MAY BE A LIGHT THERE THAT ILLUMINATES PART OF THE DRIVEWAY, BUT THE FRONT DOOR ITSELF IS RECESSED.

Q: DOES IT ILLUMINATE THE AREA WALKING IMMEDIATELY UP TO THE FRONT DOOR, THE BRICK AREA?

A: I COULD SEE UP TO THE -- UP TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, YES.

Q: AND IT IS VERY BRIGHT IN THAT AREA BECAUSE OF THAT HALOGEN LIGHT, IS IT NOT?

A: I -- I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT IS REAL BRIGHT. I COULD SEE UP THERE.

Q: SEE CLEARLY?

A: I COULD SEE UP THERE. I COULD SEE THERE WAS NO ONE THERE.

Q: NOW, AT ANY TIME DID YOU GIVE ANY DIRECTIONS TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION OUTSIDE THE RESIDENCE?

A: NO.

Q: YOU ARE IN CHARGE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I'M ONE OF THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE, YES.

Q: DETECTIVE LANGE?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE OTHER PEOPLE ARE THERE ONLY TO ASSIST YOU?

A: YES.

Q: THEY ARE WORKING AT YOUR DIRECTION NOW?

A: THEY ARE EXPERIENCED POLICE OFFICERS. THEY -- THEY DON'T NECESSARILY WORK AT MY DIRECTION.

Q: WELL, YOU WOULD NOT ALLOW THEM TO INDEPENDENTLY DO ANYTHING AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE, WOULD YOU?

A: I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT. INDEPENDENTLY DO --

Q: ANY TYPE OF INVESTIGATION AT THE CRIME SCENE. WHAT THEY WERE ALLOWED TO DO WAS STAND IN THE STREET AND WAIT FOR YOU TO COME UP; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I WASN'T THERE. THAT WAS NOT MY ORDER.

Q: AND SO THEREFORE YOU WOULDN'T ALLOW THEM TO DO ANYTHING AT THE ROCKINGHAM CRIME SCENE, WOULD YOU, WITHOUT YOUR DIRECTION?

A: THAT IS NOT TRUE. THEY ARE EXPERIENCED POLICE OFFICERS.

Q: SO THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT?

A: NO, NO. THAT IS MISREADING. EXPERIENCED POLICE OFFICERS HAVE THE ABILITY TO WORK, WITHOUT DIRECT SUPERVISION, AT ALL TIMES.

Q: SO IN YOUR OPINION MARK FUHRMAN COULD DO WHATEVER HE WANTED BASED ON HIS EXPERIENCE AT THE ROCKINGHAM SCENE?

A: ASK ME THAT AGAIN, PLEASE.

Q: BASED ON MARK FUHRMAN'S EXPERIENCE AS A DETECTIVE, WHICH YOU ARE UNAWARE OF, HE HAD THE IMPLICIT PERMISSION FROM YOU TO DO ANY INVESTIGATION HE WANTED AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?

A: WELL, I THINK THE FOUR OF US WERE WORKING, YES; WE ARE ALL POLICE OFFICERS.

Q: I WANT TO MAKE SURE I HAVE YOUR ANSWER CORRECTLY, THAT MARK FUHRMAN HAD THE INDEPENDENT RIGHT TO DO ANY INVESTIGATION HE WANTED AT THE ROCKINGHAM CRIME SCENE?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WAS IT YOUR STATE OF MIND, AS ONE OF THE TWO LEAD DETECTIVES, THAT MARK FUHRMAN HAD THE RIGHT, BASED ON THE FACT THAT HE WAS A DETECTIVE, TO DO AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION AT ROCKINGHAM?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, LEGAL CONCLUSION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

MR. SHAPIRO: PERHAPS YOUR HONOR COULD --

THE COURT: THE PROBLEM HERE IS "INDEPENDENT."

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION AT ROCKINGHAM WITHOUT YOUR PRECISE DIRECTION?

A: OF COURSE HE DID. HE IS A LOS ANGELES POLICE OFFICER.

Q: AND THAT IS WHAT HE DID, ISN'T IT?

A: YES.

Q: EVEN THOUGH HE HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THIS CASE AND TOLD BY YOU THAT THE ONLY THING HE COULD DO AT BUNDY WAS TO SECURE THE SCENE AND STAY OUTSIDE, NOW AT ROCKINGHAM HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: HE IS FREE TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION AT ROCKINGHAM; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: HE IS THERE TO ASSIST ME IN THE INVESTIGATION, YES.

Q: DID YOU HEAR HIS TESTIMONY, SIR?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID YOU HEAR HIM TESTIFY THAT WHILE YOU GUYS WERE RINGING THE DOOR HE DECIDED JUST TO TAKE A WALK DOWN ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU ASKED HIM TO DO?

A: NO, BUT I DON'T HAVE HIM ON A LEASH EITHER. HE IS A CAPABLE MAN. HE IS CAPABLE OF WALKING AROUND AND I DON'T FOLLOW HIM AT ALL TIMES.

Q: ISN'T HE THERE TO HELP YOU?

A: THAT WAS PART OF HIS -- PART OF HIS ASSISTANCE AT THAT POINT.

Q: JUST WALKING AROUND?

A: SURE.

Q: TAKING A LITTLE WALK?

A: SURE. WHY NOT? I DID, TOO.

Q: I THOUGHT THIS WAS -- BECAME A SITUATION WHERE YOU WERE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE'S WELFARE?

A: THIS WAS A SITUATION I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE'S WELFARE.

Q: ISN'T IT INCONSISTENT, IF YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE'S WELFARE, THAT YOU WILL JUST SIMPLY TAKE A WALK?

A: WELL, I'M NOT SURE THAT HE SIMPLY TOOK A WALK. HE WALKED DOWN TOWARD THE ROCKFORD GATE, OR I'M SORRY, ROCKINGHAM GATE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HIS STATE OF MIND WAS WHEN HE WAS WALKING DOWN THROUGH THERE.

Q: DID HE CALL YOU OVER TO THE BRONCO?

A: HE DID AT ONE POINT, YES.

Q: HOW DID HE DO THAT?

A: I WAS STANDING IN THE INTERSECTION OR NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF ASHFORD AND ROCKINGHAM AND I SAW HIM WALK A LITTLE WAY TOWARD ME FROM THE VEHICLE AND CALL, "HEY, PHIL, COME OVER HERE."

Q: WHAT WERE YOU DOING STANDING IN THE INTERSECTION?

A: I WAS STANDING ADJACENT OR CLOSE TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WHO WAS TALKING WITH ONE OF THE WESTEC PEOPLE.

Q: WHERE WAS DETECTIVE LANGE?

A: I BELIEVE HE WAS -- BELIEVE HE WAS BETWEEN ME AND THE INTERSECTION AND THE ASHFORD GATE AT THAT TIME.

Q: SO YOU HAD ABANDONED YOUR ATTEMPTS TO TRY TO GET IN?

A: NO. WE WERE -- WE ARE WERE WORKING WITH WESTEC TRYING TO GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AT THAT POINT.

Q: WHAT INFORMATION WERE YOU TRYING TO GET FROM WESTEC?

A: IF THERE WERE TRAVEL PLANS, IF THEY KNEW WHETHER THERE WAS ANYONE HOME, IF THEY HAD ACCESS TO THE LOCATION.

Q: AND YOU HAD TO WAIT FOR SOMEBODY FROM WESTEC TO COME OUT? COULDN'T YOU GET THAT VIA YOUR POLICE RADIO AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM?

A: COULD I HAVE?

Q: YEAH.

A: WELL, I DON'T KNOW. WHILE WE WERE TRYING TO SECURE THAT THROUGH THE WATCH COMMANDER, A WESTEC UNIT DROVE UP JUST -- JUST DROVE BY THE LOCATION.

Q: COINCIDENTALLY, HUM?

A: COINCIDENTALLY HE DROVE BY AND WE STOPPED HIM.

Q: HAD THE BLACK AND WHITE ARRIVED AT THAT TIME?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS IN THE SAME TIME FRAME THAT THE BLACK AND WHITE ARRIVED, YES.

Q: WHEN YOU DROVE UP TO ROCKINGHAM, DID YOU NOTICE THE BRONCO INITIALLY?

A: I SAW THE CAR PARKED, YES.

Q: DID YOU SEE IT PARKED UNUSUALLY?

A: LOOKED LIKE IT WAS HASTILY PARKED.

Q: HASTILY PARKED?

A: YEAH.

Q: DO YOU FIND THAT PEOPLE WHO LOCK CARS HASTILY PARK CARS?

A: THAT IS SUBJECTIVE, TOO. I GUESS -- I GUESS THAT COULD BE A YES OR NO EITHER WAY.

Q: HOW FAR FROM THE CURB WAS THE FRONT WHEEL OF THE CAR -- OF THE VEHICLE? IT IS A TRUCK-LIKE VEHICLE?

A: CLOSER THAN THE REAR WHEEL.

Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? A COUPLE INCHES?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: DID YOU MEASURE IT?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU ASK ANYBODY TO MEASURE IT?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: TO THIS DAY FROM YOUR PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: NO, NO.

Q: ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT THE CURB AREA WHERE THERE IS CONCRETE IS ONE FOOT?

A: THAT IS A POSSIBILITY.

Q: AND THAT THE TIRES ON THE FRONT AND THE BACK ARE BOTH TOUCHING THAT AREA?

A: AS I RECALL FROM THE PICTURE, THE TIRE IN THE BACK IS SITTING ON THE ASPHALT PORTION OF THE STREET.

Q: HOW CLOSE IS IT TO THE CONCRETE?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: THE FACT THAT IT WAS HASTILY PARKED, DID THAT CAUSE YOU ANY CONCERN?

A: NOT AT THAT POINT, NO.

Q: IT IS SOMETHING YOU OBSERVED AS A POLICEMAN?

A: SOMETHING I -- I WAS DRIVING THE CAR. I WOULD HAVE EITHER HAD TO SEE THE CAR OR PROBABLY RUN INTO THE CAR, YEAH.

Q: HAVE YOU DESCRIBED THAT AS THE REAR END JUTTING OUT MORE THAN THE FRONT IN ANY OFFICIAL REPORTS?

A: PROBABLY.

Q: AND DO YOU THINK THAT IS A FAIR DESCRIPTION?

A: WELL, I THINK THE REAR END WAS STICKING OUT FARTHER THAN THE FRONT END, YES.

Q: DID MARK FUHRMAN HAVE A FLASHLIGHT WHEN HE WAS OVER AT THE BRONCO?

A: MARK FUHRMAN CARRIED A FLASHLIGHT ON HIS BELT, YES.

Q: WHAT KIND OF FLASHLIGHT?

A: A SMALL STREAM LIGHT.

Q: WHAT SIZE?

A: A SMALL STREAM LIGHT. IT WAS CARRIED IN A LITTLE LEATHER HOLDER ON HIS BELT.

Q: WHEN YOU HAD A MORE POWERFUL FLASHLIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: DID HE TALK TO YOU WHEN HE ASKED YOU TO COME OVER TO THE BRONCO?

A: HE DID WHEN I GOT THERE, YEAH.

Q: DID HE SIGNAL YOU OVER IN ANY WAY?

A: NO. HE CALLED ME OVER.

Q: WHAT DID HE SAY?

A: "HEY, PHIL, COME HERE. I WANT TO SHOW YOU SOMETHING."

Q: WHAT DID HE SHOW YOU?

A: HE SHOWED ME A SPOT ABOVE THE DOOR HANDLE.

Q: THAT IS THE FIRST THING HE SHOWED YOU?

A: WELL, I HAD BEEN THERE PREVIOUSLY.

Q: IS THAT THE FIRST THING MARK FUHRMAN SHOWED YOU, YES OR NO, AT THE BRONCO?

A: AT WHAT POINT, SIR?

Q: THE TIME YOU WERE AT ROCKINGHAM IS THE FIRST THING THAT MARK FUHRMAN SHOWS YOU A SPOT OF BLOOD?

A: NO.

Q: WHAT IS THE FIRST THING MARK FUHRMAN SHOWS YOU?

A: I WALKED OVER THERE PREVIOUSLY. MARK FUHRMAN WAS THERE. I SAW -- HE SHINED A LIGHT AND I SHINED MY LIGHT INTO THE BACK OF THE VEHICLE AND THEN I WALKED BACK TOWARD THE INTERSECTION AND THAT IS WHEN HE CALLED ME BACK.

Q: DID HE SHOW YOU INTO THE BACK OF THE VEHICLE -- DID HE DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE BACK OF THE VEHICLE AND TELL YOU TO LOOK AT SOMETHING OR IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT BOTH OF YOU SIMULTANEOUSLY WERE AT THE BACK OF THE VEHICLE, BOTH HAD YOUR FLASHLIGHTS AND BOTH LOOKED IN AND SAW THE SAME THING AT THE SAME TIME? IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY, SIR?

A: NO. HE DIRECTED ME TO LOOK IN THE BACK OF THE VEHICLE.

Q: WHAT DID HE DO WHEN -- WHAT DID HE SAY TO YOU WHEN HE CAME OVER?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE WITNESS: I REALLY DON'T RECALL THE CONVERSATION OTHER THAN HE DIRECTED ME TO LOOK IN THE BACK OF THE VEHICLE, AND AS I WALKED UP I SAW A PIECE OF WOOD LYING ON THE PARKWAY.

MR. SHAPIRO: JUST EXCUSE ME FOR ONE MOMENT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND WHAT DID YOU SEE WHEN YOU FIRST LOOKED INTO THAT VEHICLE?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: FROM THE REAR WINDOW?

A: I SAW A PACKAGE I BELIEVE ADDRESSED TO ORENTHAL PRODUCTIONS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

Q: OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT?

A: WELL, I DON'T RECALL THE ACTUAL -- ACTUAL ADDRESS. IT WAS ORENTHAL PRODUCTIONS OR O.J. SIMPSON PRODUCTIONS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

Q: DIDN'T YOU MAKE A BIG POINT OF SAYING IT WAS ORENTHAL PRODUCTIONS AND YOU KNEW THAT MEANT O.J. SIMPSON?

A: WELL, I KNEW THAT MEANT O.J. SIMPSON, YES.

Q: AND I TAKE IT YOU HAVE -- YOU TOOK THAT AS PART OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?

A: WELL, THE ENTIRE CAR WAS IMPOUNDED WITH IT IN IT, YES.

Q: SO THAT PACKAGE IS IN EVIDENCE?

A: I DON'T KNOW THAT.

Q: YOU WOULD ASSUME THAT IT IS IN EVIDENCE?

A: WELL, THE ENTIRE CAR WAS IMPOUNDED, YES.

Q: AND EVERYTHING IN IT SHOULD BE IN EVIDENCE THEN; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: DID YOU SEE ANYTHING ELSE AT THAT TIME IN THE BACK OF THE CAR?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID YOU SEE?

A: A SHOVEL AND A PIECE OF PLASTIC, WHAT APPEARED TO BE A FOLDED UP PIECE A PLASTIC AND A WHITE CLOTH.

Q: LET ME SHOW YOU, DETECTIVE LANGE, IN YOUR REPORT AGAIN THAT WAS --

THE COURT: DETECTIVE VANNATTER.

MR. SHAPIRO: I'M SORRY?

THE COURT: DETECTIVE VANNATTER.

MR. SHAPIRO: I SAID DETECTIVE LANGE AND HIS REPORT

THE COURT: I'M SORRY, I MISHEARD YOU.

MR. SHAPIRO: HE IS DETECTIVE VANNATTER.

THE COURT: I THOUGHT YOU WERE ADDRESSING HIM AS DETECTIVE LANGE.

MR. SHAPIRO: NO, NO, THAT IS DETECTIVE LANGE.

THE COURT: YES, I RECOGNIZE HIM.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: ALL RIGHT. I WANT TO DIRECT YOU TO THE REPORT THAT YOU HAVE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, THAT IS THE FOLLOW-UP REPORT, AND ASK YOU TO TELL US WHERE IN THAT REPORT IT INDICATES THAT YOU OBSERVED THE SHOVEL IN THE BACK OF THE BRONCO?

A: I THINK WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION PREVIOUSLY. IT DOESN'T.

Q: AND YOU KIND OF SAY THAT LIKE LAUGHING. IS SOMETHING FUNNY ABOUT IT NOT BEING IN THERE?

A: NOTHING AT ALL, SIR. IT ISN'T IN THERE.

Q: IS THERE ANYTHING FUNNY ABOUT THIS EXAMINATION?

A: NOTHING WHATSOEVER.

Q: DID YOU FIND ANY PLASTIC? DID YOU INDICATE IN YOUR REPORT THERE WAS ANY PLASTIC IN THERE?

A: NO.

Q: THOSE ARE IMPORTANT THINGS FOR OBSERVATIONS FOR A DETAILED REPORT, AREN'T THEY?

A: IF THEY ARE IMPORTANT TO THE CASE, YES.

Q: IN FACT, YOU INDICATED IN THAT REPORT AT THAT TIME DETECTIVE FUHRMAN SHOWED YOU BLOOD?

A: THAT IS WHAT THE REPORT SAYS, YES.

Q: THAT IS NOT TRUE, IS IT?

A: WELL, I WAS THERE TWICE. HE SHOWED ME BLOOD AT ONE POINT, YES.

Q: BUT THE REPORT IS NOT ACCURATE AND IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU HAVE JUST TOLD US, IS IT?

A: THE REPORT IS AN OVERVIEW OF THE INVESTIGATION. IT IS NOT A SECOND BY SECOND ACCOUNT OF WHAT OCCURRED.

Q: WELL, IT IS SECOND BY SECOND. THERE ARE CRUCIAL THINGS THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT THAT YOU TESTIFIED TO; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S POSSIBLE, YES.

Q: AND YOU TOLD US EARLIER THAT WHEN YOU WROTE THIS REPORT IT WAS AN ACCURATE REPORT AND THERE WERE NO ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN THE REPORT, DID YOU NOT?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU ASK DETECTIVE PHILLIPS TO LOOK AROUND THAT TRUCK TO SEE IF HE COULD FIND ANY EVIDENCE?

A: DETECTIVE PHILLIPS? NO, I DID NOT.

Q: DID YOU ASK DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TO LOOK AROUND THAT TRUCK TO SEE IF COULD HE FIND ANY EVIDENCE?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU ASK DETECTIVE LANGE TO LOOK AROUND THAT TRUCK?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU LOOK AROUND THAT TRUCK?

A: YES.

Q: AFTER YOU WERE DIRECTED BY SOMEONE ELSE?

A: WELL, I WALKED DOWN THERE FIRST AND THEN WAS CALLED OVER TO THE TRUCK, YES.

Q: SO WHAT YOU ARE TELLING ME IS THERE ARE FOUR DETECTIVES, TWO LEAD DETECTIVES THAT ARE THERE, AND NONE OF YOU EXAMINED THE TRUCK, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: HE WAS THE FIRST ONE THAT DID, YES.

Q: AND HE IS THE ONE WHO DISCOVERED THE BLOOD DROP ON THE DOOR HANDLE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: NOW, YOU HEARD HIM TESTIFY THAT THERE WERE BLOOD SMEARS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR, DIDN'T YOU?

A: I DID, YES.

Q: DID YOU SEE THOSE?

A: I DID AT A LATER TIME. I DON'T RECALL HIM SHOWING THEM TO ME THAT NIGHT.

Q: YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED YOU DIDN'T SEE THEM, HAVEN'T YOU?

A: WELL, I SAW A REPORT THAT WAS DONE BY THE CRIMINALIST. I DON'T RECALL SEEING THEM THAT -- THAT EVENING OR THAT MORNING.

Q: IN FACT, YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED YOU DIDN'T SEE ANY BLOOD ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO, DIDN'T YOU?

A: THAT I DIDN'T?

Q: DID NOT?

A: I -- I DON'T RECALL SEEING ANY BLOOD ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO.

Q: AND WHERE IN YOUR REPORT DID YOU INDICATE THAT THERE WAS -- IN ADDITION TO A SPOT ON THE DOOR HANDLE, THAT THERE WAS BLOOD ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO, SIR?

A: WHERE DID I INDICATE THAT?

Q: YES.

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU INDICATE IT IN YOUR REPORT?

A: I DON'T KNOW. I WOULD -- I WOULD HAVE TO READ THE ENTIRE REPORT TO TELL YOU THAT.

Q: WELL, I DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT THE VALUABLE JURY TIME NOW. MAYBE YOU CAN DO THAT TONIGHT AND READ THAT REPORT AND GIVE US THAT ANSWER TOMORROW. WE WILL GO ON TO SOMETHING ELSE.

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION AND A MOTION TO STRIKE.

THE COURT: THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THE COMMENT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: THE TIME SEQUENCE OF ARRIVING AT ROCKINGHAM WAS AT ABOUT 5:05?

A: BETWEEN 5:05 AND 5:10, YES.

Q: AND YOU WENT TO THE FRONT GATE ON ASHFORD AND RANG THE BELL FOR TEN TO FIFTEEN MINUTES?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: THAT TAKES YOU TO ABOUT 5:20 OR 5:25?

A: APPROXIMATELY, YES.

Q: AND AT THAT POINT IN TIME DETECTIVE FUHRMAN STARTS TO WALK AWAY FROM YOUR GROUP?

A: AT WHAT POINT IN TIME?

Q: WELL, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU. AT WHAT POINT IN TIME DOES DETECTIVE FUHRMAN START TO WALK AWAY FROM THE GROUP?

A: WELL, WE WERE ALL MOVING AROUND THERE. WE AREN'T STANDING IN A REAL TIGHT CLUSTER. WE WERE ALL MOVING AROUND.

Q: WELL, BUT HE WENT DOWN ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES, HE DID. AT ONE POINT I BELIEVE WHEN WE ORIGINALLY STOPPED THE FIRST WESTEC UNIT I SAW HIM WALKING DOWN THE STREET.

Q: WHAT TIME WAS THAT?

A: THAT WOULD HAVE PROBABLY BEEN AROUND 5:30 IN THE MORNING, 5:25, 5:30.

Q: THAT HE FIRST WALKED TOWARDS THE BRONCO?

A: THAT I SAW HIM, YES.

Q: AND THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU LOOKED IN THE BRONCO WAS WHAT TIME?

A: JUST SHORTLY AFTER THAT I WALKED DOWN THERE.

Q: GIVE US AN ESTIMATE.

A: 5:25, 5:30.

Q: AND THEN YOU CAME BACK?

A: THEN I WALKED BACK TOWARD WHERE THE WESTEC UNIT WAS WITH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS.

Q: AND HOW LONG DID YOU SPEND THERE?

A: A SHORT TIME. HE MADE A PHONE CALL INSIDE THE RESIDENCE AND TOLD ME THAT HE HAD GOTTEN AN ANSWERPHONE.

Q: IS THAT WHEN YOU WERE TRYING TO LOCATE O.J. SIMPSON?

A: STILL TRYING TO THIS ENTIRE TIME, YES.

Q: AND WHY DIDN'T YOU ASK WESTEC FOR AN EMERGENCY NUMBER FOR O.J.?

A: WELL, I THINK THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF US ASKING THEM.

Q: DIDN'T THEY HAVE IN CASE OF EMERGENCY TO CONTACT HIS SECRETARY?

A: I DON'T KNOW THAT. I DON'T KNOW.

Q: BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T ASK, RIGHT?

A: I DIDN'T ASK, NO.

Q: YOU DIDN'T ASK ANYONE TO ASK?

A: I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT HE HAD A SECRETARY.

Q: AND NOBODY THOUGHT OF THAT QUESTION, DID THEY?

A: I DON'T THINK THAT WAS ASKED, NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

Q: THEN YOU WENT BACK THE SECOND TIME TO LOOK AT THE BRONCO?

A: I WAS CALLED BACK, YES.

Q: WHAT TIME WAS THAT?

A: AROUND 5:30.

Q: AND HOW LONG DID YOU SPEND AT THE BRONCO AT THAT TIME?

A: NOT VERY LONG. A SHORT TIME. WE SPOKE. MAYBE FIVE MINUTES. I DON'T KNOW.

Q: THAT TAKES YOU TO 5:35?

A: APPROXIMATELY, YEAH.

Q: AND WHEN YOU SAW THAT LITTLE SPECK, I TAKE IT AT THAT POINT IN TIME YOU WANTED TO CHECK THE ENTIRE BRONCO TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY OTHER BLOOD OR ANY OTHER POSSIBLE EVIDENCE, DID YOU NOT?

A: AT THAT POINT I WAS BECOMING VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE LOCATION AND I COULD SEE THAT THE VEHICLE WAS LOCKED AND MY CONCERN AT THAT POINT WAS THAT MAYBE I HAD ANOTHER CRIME SCENE OR SOMEONE INJURED OR HURT.

Q: HOW COULD YOU SEE THE VEHICLE WAS LOCKED?

A: YOU COULD SEE THE LOCK KNOBS ON THE DOOR.

Q: WHAT ABOUT THE REAR GATE LATCH? DID YOU CHECK THAT?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: SO YOU DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS OPENED OR LOCKED, DID YOU?

A: NO, I DON'T.

Q: WHAT WAS THE DIFFERENCE WHETHER THE VEHICLE WAS LOCKED OR NOT?

A: WELL, I WAS --

Q: DID YOU WANT TO GET INTO IT?

A: NO, NOT AT THAT POINT.

Q: YOU HAD NO -- YOU HAD JUST COME FROM A BLOODY CRIME SCENE, YOU WERE NOW AT THE HOME OF SOMEBODY WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN INVOLVED IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATIONS, YOU SEE A SHOVEL IN THE BACK AND BLOOD ON THE CAR AND DO YOU NOT WANT TO LOOK IN THAT CAR? IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY, SIR?

A: NO. MY TESTIMONY IS I WAS CONCERNED WITH ANY POSSIBLE OCCUPANTS THAT MAY BE AT THE HOME.

Q: YOU HAVE ALREADY TOLD US THAT. YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT O.J.'S WELFARE WHEN YOU SAW THAT, RIGHT?

A: O.J. SIMPSON AND POSSIBLY A MAID THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE, YES.

Q: AND SO YOU VOICED THAT CONCERN TO THE WESTEC PEOPLE, DIDN'T YOU, AND SAY, "THIS IS AN EMERGENCY, WE HAVE GOT TO FIND O.J. AND THE MAID," DIDN'T YOU?

A: I BELIEVE THAT WAS RELATED TO THEM BY DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, YES.

Q: AND YOU ASKED THEM TO FIND AN EMERGENCY NUMBER SO COULD YOU FIND O.J. BECAUSE NOW AN EMERGENCY HAD DEVELOPED, DID YOU NOT?

A: I DIDN'T, NO.

Q: YOU ASKED OTHER OFFICERS TO DO THAT, DIDN'T YOU?

A: I BELIEVE PHILLIPS WAS DOING THAT.

Q: WAS DOING THAT?

A: YEAH.

Q: DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION THAT HE DID DO THAT?

A: PHILLIPS WAS TALKING WITH WESTEC. I DON'T KNOW THAT HE ASKED THEM FOR EMERGENCY NUMBERS. I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT THEY HAVE -- TO THIS DAY THAT THEY HAVE AN EMERGENCY NUMBER ON THEM.

Q: YOU HAVEN'T CHECKED THAT, HAVE YOU?

A: NO, I HAVE NOT.

Q: THAT WOULDN'T BE SOMETHING YOU WOULD WANT TO KNOW, IS IT?

A: AT THIS POINT I -- I DON'T THINK SO.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, CAN YOU JUST TELL ME HOW LONG WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO CONTINUE? I HAVE A LOT MORE MATERIAL TO COVER.

THE COURT: A LOT MORE?

MR. SHAPIRO: YES.

THE COURT: HOW ABOUT WE TALKED ABOUT TWO OTHER SUBJECT MATTER AREAS.

MR. SHAPIRO: YES, BUT IT IS GOING TO TAKE AWHILE TO GET TO THOSE TWO SUBJECTS.

THE COURT: WELL, I WOULD PREFER YOU GO AT LEAST TO QUARTER TILL.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THAT WILL GIVE US A FULL AFTERNOON SESSION.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.

Q: I TAKE IT AT THAT POINT IN TIME YOU IMMEDIATELY CALLED THE COMMAND POST AND SAID, "WE HAVE A POTENTIAL EMERGENCY SIGNATURE HERE, WE ARE GOING IN"?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: ISN'T THAT PROPER POLICE PROCEDURE?

A: THAT WOULD DEPEND ON THE SITUATION.

Q: WELL, YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED UNDER OATH THAT YOU THOUGHT THERE MIGHT BE SUSPECTS RELATED TO THE MURDER OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AT THE O.J. SIMPSON RESIDENCE, HAVE YOU NOT?

A: I WAS NOT REALLY CONCERNED WITH SUSPECTS AT THAT TIME. I WAS CONCERNED WITH THE WELFARE OF THE OCCUPANTS OF THE HOME.

Q: MY QUESTION WAS HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED THERE MAY BE SUSPECTS?

A: WELL, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN SUSPECTS THERE. I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS THERE.

Q: MY QUESTION WAS HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED THERE WERE SUSPECTS THERE?

A: LIKE I SAID, SIR, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN SUSPECTS THERE. THERE COULD HAVE BEEN VICTIMS. I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS THERE.

Q: AND IT COULD HAVE BEEN A MURDER -- ANOTHER MURDER SCENE? YOU HAVE TESTIFIED TO THAT PREVIOUSLY?

A: CERTAINLY COULD HAVE, YES.

Q: AND PEOPLE COULD BE DYING THERE? YOU HAVE HEARD THAT TESTIFIED TO BY OTHER OFFICERS, HAVE YOU NOT?

A: WELL, THAT WAS MY FEELING, TOO. THAT WAS ONE OF THE POSSIBILITIES.

Q: PEOPLE COULD BE BLEEDING?

A: ABSOLUTELY.

Q: YOU COULD HAVE A HOSTAGE SITUATION?

A: THAT WAS A POSSIBILITY.

Q: YOU COULD HAVE A KIDNAPPING?

A: I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT RELATED TO A KIDNAPPING. ANY POSSIBLE SCENARIO IS POSSIBLE. IT COULD HAVE BEEN ANYTHING. I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS THERE.

Q: NO. I'M ASKING ABOUT WHAT YOU OR OTHERS HAVE PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED COULD HAVE BEEN THE SITUATION OF THE -- REGARDING YOUR STATE OF MIND WHEN YOU WERE AT ROCKINGHAM.

A: IS THAT A QUESTION?

Q: YES.

A: MY STATE OF MIND WAS I WAS CONCERNED WITH THE OCCUPANTS OF THE HOME. I WAS CONCERNED THAT I WOULD HAVE ANOTHER CRIME SCENE, PEOPLE COULD BE INJURED, THIS COULD HAVE BEEN AN EXTENSION OF THE MURDERS THAT I HAD JUST LEFT.

THERE COULD BE PEOPLE DOWN THERE, COULD BE INJURED PEOPLE. IT COULD HAVE BEEN ANY SCENARIO.

Q: THIS IS WHERE YOUR ADRENALINE REALLY STARTS TO RUSH, DOESN'T IT?

A: I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT IS A FAIR STATEMENT WITH ME. I DON'T HAVE BIG ADRENALINE RUSHES.

Q: WELL, YOU HAVE BEEN DOING IT LONG ENOUGH?

A: WELL, I DON'T EVEN THINK IT IS THAT. I JUST -- I DON'T HAVE BIG ADRENALINE RUSHES.

Q: IT MUST HAVE BEEN A PRETTY SCARY SITUATION TO GO IN THAT LOCATION NOT KNOWING WHAT WAS THERE, WITH YOUR EXPERIENCE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: EVERY SITUATION YOU GO INTO YOU HAVE BUTTERFLIES BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE GOING INTO.

Q: AND THERE ARE PEOPLE SPECIALLY TRAINED FOR THESE SITUATIONS THAT YOU HAVE JUST ENUMERATED, AREN'T THERE?

A: THERE ARE PEOPLE SPECIALLY TRAINED FOR TACTICAL SITUATIONS, YES.

Q: AREN'T THERE PEOPLE SPECIALLY TRAINED FOR HOSTAGE SITUATIONS?

A: TACTICAL SITUATIONS, YES.

Q: I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS, BUT HOSTAGE SITUATIONS, I KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.

A: HOSTAGE SITUATION IS A TACTICAL SITUATION.

Q: SO WE ARE SAYING THE SAME THING?

A: YEAH.

Q: AREN'T THERE PEOPLE SPECIALLY TRAINED IF SOMEBODY IS DYING OR BLEEDING?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: HOW TO SAVE LIVES? YOU ARE NOT TRAINED IN THAT, ARE YOU?

A: WELL, I'M CPR CERTIFIED.

Q: ARE YOU A PARAMEDIC?

A: NO, NO, NO. EXCUSE ME. FIRST AID CERTIFIED. I'M SORRY, I MISSPOKE THAT. I THINK TO TAKE THE TIME TO CALL SOMEONE FROM ANOTHER LOCATION TO COME AND CHECK, THAT WOULD BE A DERELICTION OF DUTY. I THINK IT WAS OUR DUTY TO GO IN THERE AND LOOK AND SEE IF SOMETHING WAS WRONG.

Q: WELL, YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN OUT THERE FOR 35 MINUTES AND SEEM TO BE PRETTY CASUAL ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON. NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU DON'T HAVE TIME TO MAKE A PHONE CALL WITH ONE OF FOUR UNITS TO CALL FOR A BACK-UP UNIT OR A COMMAND POST AND SAY, "I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE HAVE BUT WE BETTER GET SOME MORE SUPPORT HERE. WE BETTER GET SOME PARAMEDICS, WE BETTER GET SOME EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT. I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT WE HAVE BUT I'M TELLING YOU MY INSTINCTS AS A DETECTIVE TELL ME IT IS SERIOUS."

A: WE CALLED FOR A BACK-UP UNIT. WE HAD A BLACK AND WHITE UNIT THERE.

Q: WELL, THAT WAS ALREADY THERE?

A: WE CALLED FOR THEM.

Q: THAT WAS BEFORE YOU DECIDED IT WAS AN EMERGENCY?

A: NO. THAT WAS PART OF THE PROCESS. THAT WAS -- THE EMERGENCY CAME BACK FROM A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT DIDN'T ALL OCCUR AT ONE TIME. THAT WAS A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT OCCURRED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME.

Q: SO YOU HAD A PATROL VEHICLE THERE?

A: YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: SPECIALLY TRAINED OFFICERS OR NOT?

A: UNIFORMED POLICE OFFICERS.

Q: HOW MANY?

A: TWO.

Q: AND DID YOU GIVE THEM ANY DIRECTION AT THE TIME THEY ARRIVED?

A: I DON'T THINK I TALKED TO THEM WHEN THEY FIRST ARRIVED. I DON'T THINK I ACTUALLY SPOKE TO THEM.

Q: YOU CALLED FOR THEM, IT WAS AN EMERGENCY SITUATION, YOU HAD TO COME OUT, BUT YOU DIDN'T TELL THEM WHAT TO DO?

A: I THINK -- I THINK WE ARE TALKING SEMANTICS. I THINK YOU ARE RELATING TO A TACTICAL SITUATION. I'M TALKING ABOUT AN EMERGENCY SITUATION. THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

Q: WELL, LET'S SAY IT WAS AN EMERGENCY SITUATION THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO. IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION YOU'VE CALLED FOR A BLACK AND WHITE BACK-UP, THEY COME AND RUSH TO THE LOCATION AND YOU DON'T TELL THEM WHAT TO DO, WHAT THE EMERGENCY IS?

A: AGAIN, I THINK -- I THINK WE ARE TALKING SEMANTICS. I THINK WHAT YOU ARE -- WHAT YOU ARE RELATING TO IS A TACTICAL SITUATION WHERE YOU KNOW THE SITUATION THAT YOU HAVE, AND YOU COULD SAY THAT YOU HAVE A TACTICAL SITUATION THAT IS AN EMERGENCY IF YOU KNOW YOU HAVE A SUSPECT OR YOU KNOW YOU HAVE A HOSTAGE OR YOU KNOW FOR A FACT THAT YOU HAVE SOMEONE THAT IS INJURED. WE DIDN'T KNOW ALL THESE THINGS. THIS WAS A SITUATION THAT HAD TO BE DETERMINED.

Q: OH, YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN BEING PREPARED?

A: I DON'T -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND I DON'T BELIEVE IN BEING PREPARED. I THINK -- I THINK I GO INTO EVERY SITUATION ATTEMPTING TO BE PREPARED.

Q: SO AT THAT POINT IN TIME DID YOU ALONE DETERMINE THAT IT WAS TIME TO JUMP OVER THE WALL?

A: THAT WAS A DECISION THAT WAS MADE FROM SPEAKING WITH MY PARTNER AND THE OTHER TWO DETECTIVES.

Q: SO IT WAS A JOINT DECISION BY YOU, MARK FUHRMAN AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS?

A: MAINLY MYSELF AND DETECTIVE LANGE.

Q: WELL, WHEN YOU SAY "MAINLY," DID ALL OF YOU DISCUSS IT OR JUST THE TWO OF YOU?

A: WELL, WE WERE ALL STANDING THERE TALKING. IT WAS A DECISION THAT WAS LEFT UP TO MYSELF AND LANGE.

Q: AND YOU BOTH SAID, "LET'S GO IN"?

A: EXACTLY.

Q: AND YOU ELECTED MARK FUHRMAN, BECAUSE HE WAS THE YOUNGEST AND THE MOST ATHLETIC, TO CLIMB THE WALL?

A: THAT IS PART OF THE REASON, YES.

Q: DID HE HAVE ANY PROTECTIVE GEAR ON WHEN HE WENT OVER THE WALL?

A: NO, HE DID NOT.

Q: DID YOU HAVE ANY PROTECTIVE GEAR ON BACKING HIM UP?

A: NO.

Q: DID ANY OF THE OTHER TWO OFFICERS, DETECTIVES THERE, HAVE PROTECTIVE GEAR ON?

A: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

Q: DID ANYBODY PULL OUT ANY SHOTGUNS TO BACK THEM UP IN CASE YOU WERE GOING TO ENCOUNTER A SUSPECT OR SUSPECTS INSIDE?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU NOTIFY THE TWO UNIFORMED OFFICERS TO COME UP AND BACK YOU UP, THAT YOU ARE GOING IN NOW?

A: I THINK THEY WERE CALLED TO THE GATE TO STAND BY THE GATE, YES.

Q: THEY WERE?

A: YES, I BELIEVE SO.

Q: WHERE IN YOUR REPORT DID YOU INDICATE THAT?

A: I DON'T KNOW THAT I DID.

Q: WHERE IN YOUR PREVIOUS TESTIMONY HAVE YOU SAID THAT?

A: I SAID I THINK THEY WERE CALLED TO THE ASHFORD GATE OR THEY CAME OVER THERE ON THEIR OWN WHEN WE WENT OVER THE FENCE.

Q: ARE YOU TELLING THIS JURY THAT YOU DID NOT SIT DOWN WITH TWO UNIFORMED OFFICERS, TELL THEM WHAT THE EMERGENCY WAS AND GIVE THEM INSTRUCTIONS TO COVER YOUR BACK BECAUSE YOU FOUR GUYS ARE GOING IN?

A: THEY WERE TOLD WE WERE GOING IN.

Q: DID YOU TELL THEM WHAT TO DO?

A: TO STAND BY THE GATE.

Q: JUST TO STAND THERE?

A: YEAH.

Q: DID YOU TELL THEM TO GET SHOTGUNS, GET READY, THIS IS WHAT WE'VE GOT, GUYS, THIS IS A POTENTIAL EMERGENCY?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: YOU NEVER SAID THAT, DID YOU?

A: NO. AGAIN, MR. SHAPIRO, I THINK YOU ARE -- I THINK YOU ARE CONFUSING AN EMERGENCY SITUATION WITH A TACTICAL SITUATION. IF I WOULD HAVE HAD A TACTICAL SITUATION AND KNEW THAT I HAD A SUSPECT OR KNEW THAT I HAD A HOSTAGE OR KNEW THAT I HAD A MURDER SUSPECT IN THERE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED TOTALLY DIFFERENT. THIS WAS A SITUATION WHERE I WAS WORRIED THAT SOMETHING HAD OCCURRED THERE POSSIBLY LIKE HAD OCCURRED AT BUNDY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO NOW YOU ARE CONCERNED WITH THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF O.J. SIMPSON AND THE MAID AND YOU ARE GOING IN TO SAY WHERE IS O.J. AND WHERE IS THE MAID, RIGHT?

A: WHERE IS ANYBODY THAT MAY BE AT THAT LOCATION.

Q: WELL, YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHO WAS EXPECTED TO BE THERE, DID YOU?

A: I HAD NO IDEA, NO.

Q: SO YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR? IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY?

A: I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT, IF ANYTHING, HAD OCCURRED THERE, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: SO YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT YOU WERE DOING THERE, DID YOU?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHAT WERE YOU DOING THERE?

A: I WENT THERE ORIGINALLY TO MAKE A NOTIFICATION, TO MEET MR. SIMPSON. THE TWO DETECTIVES WERE ASSISTING ME. ONCE I GOT THERE, THE SITUATION CHANGED WITH THE INFORMATION WE HAD RECEIVED AND THE EVIDENCE THAT WE SAW.

Q: AND NOW YOU ARE GOING IN TO LOOK FOR PEOPLE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU GO TO THE FRONT DOOR AND RING THE FRONT DOORBELL?

A: YES.

Q: YOU GET NO RESPONSE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DO YOU FORCE ENTRY?

A: NO.

Q: WHY NOT?

A: BECAUSE AT THAT POINT I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE.

Q: WELL, YOU WERE VERY CONCERNED AT THAT POINT IN TIME, WEREN'T YOU?

A: YES. WE WERE MAKING -- WE WERE MAKING ARRANGEMENTS FOR A POSSIBLE FORCED ENTRY OF THE PLACE.

Q: WHERE HAVE YOU TESTIFIED TO THAT PREVIOUSLY? YOU DIDN'T TELL THE GRAND JURY THAT, DID YOU?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHERE IN YOUR REPORTS DID YOU INDICATE THAT YOU WERE MAKING ARRANGEMENTS FOR A FORCED ENTRY, SIR?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS IN THE REPORTS.

Q: WHO DID YOU NOTIFY AT POLICE HEADQUARTERS OR COMMUNICATIONS THAT YOU WERE PREPARING A FORCED ENTRY?

A: NO ONE.

Q: WHAT PREPARATIONS DID YOU MAKE FOR A FORCED ENTRY?

A: DETECTIVE PHILLIPS CONTACTED THE WATCH COMMANDER AND ASKED HIM TO SEND A WESTEC UNIT BACK TO THE LOCATION, THAT WE MAY HAVE TO MAKE FORCED ENTRY INTO THE LOCATION.

Q: SO FOR AN EMERGENCY SITUATION LIKE THIS NOW YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE THE SECURITY OF WESTEC GOING IN WITH YOU? IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY?

A: WELL, WE HAD -- AT THAT POINT WE HAD SIX POLICE OFFICERS THERE, SIR.

Q: WELL, YOU HAD 25 STANDING AROUND THE MURDER SCENE, DIDN'T YOU?

A: YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DID YOU CALL ANY OF THEM OVER?

A: NO.

Q: THEY WERE ONLY FIVE MINUTES AWAY, WEREN'T THEY?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WHEN YOU WENT IN, DID YOU START MAKING SOME NOISE TO TRY TO AROUSE THE OCCUPANTS?

A: YES. WE WERE TALKING, WE WERE KNOCKING ON DOORS.

Q: WERE YOU YELLING?

A: NO.

Q: WERE YOU MAKING YOUR PRESENCE KNOWN?

A: WELL, I THINK OUR PRESENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN. WE HAD FLASHLIGHT. WE WERE TALKING, WE WERE KNOCKING ON DOORS, WE WERE MOVING AROUND THE GROUNDS.

Q: YOU WERE TALKING TO EACH OTHER, WEREN'T YOU?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: YOU WEREN'T KNOCKING, "O.J., ARE YOU HERE? IS THERE ANY PROBLEM? ARE YOU OKAY?" WERE YOU DOING THOSE THINGS?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU DECIDE WHERE TO GO, WHERE FOUR OFFICERS COMING IN VIRTUALLY UNPROTECTED ARE GOING TO WALK AROUND THIS ENORMOUS ESTATE IN THE DARKNESS? DID YOU MAKE ANY PLAN AS TO HOW YOU WERE GOING TO PROTECT YOURSELVES?

A: THAT IS PART OF OUR JOB TO DO THINGS LIKE THAT. THE PROTECTION IS PROBABLY BY NUMBERS. THERE WAS NO SET PLAN.

Q: SO YOU DIDN'T SAY, YOU KNOW, ONE GUY WILL GO TO THIS SIDE AND I WILL BACK HIM UP AND YOU AND YOUR PARTNER WILL GO HERE, WE WILL BACK YOU UP? IT IS JUST OKAY, GUYS, LET'S SEE WHAT YOU CAN FIND AND YOU STARTED WALKING AROUND?

A: I NEVER HAD THE FEELING THAT I WAS IN A DANGEROUS SITUATION AT ANY POINT. I FELT THAT I MAY HAVE AN EMERGENCY SITUATION, BUT I NEVER FELT A PERSONAL DANGER AT THAT LOCATION.

Q: DID YOU WANT TO MOVE QUICKLY?

A: WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT IS TRUE. I WAS TRYING TO LOOK THE GROUNDS OVER TO SEE IF I COULD SEE ANYTHING ON THE GROUNDS AS I WAS MOVING.

Q: DID YOU TELL EVERYBODY, "LET'S CHECK THE GROUNDS FIRST?" WAS THAT YOUR PLAN?

A: WELL, I THINK THAT IS -- I THINK THAT IS JUST TYPICAL POLICE WORK. AS YOU ARE MOVING, YOU ARE LOOKING. I WAS SHINING MY LIGHT UNDER THE TREES AND EVERYTHING TO SEE IF I COULD SEE ANYTHING.

Q: WELL. FIRST OF ALL, WHEN YOU COME IN RIGHT TO THE RIGHT YOU SEE A PLAYHOUSE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU HAVE BEEN INSIDE THAT PLAYHOUSE, HAVEN'T YOU?

A: I'VE BEEN BESIDE OF IT. I DON'T KNOW THAT I WAS INSIDE.

Q: HAVE YOU SEEN PEOPLE INSIDE IT? IS IT BIG ENOUGH FOR SOMEBODY TO WALK INTO?

A: YES.

Q: I TAKE IT THAT IS THE FIRST PLACE WHERE YOU WOULD WANT TO LOOK, INSIDE THAT PLAYHOUSE, TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY PROBLEM; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: WE WEREN'T LOOKING ALL OVER THE GROUNDS.

Q: SO YOU WEREN'T IN THE PLAYHOUSE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: DID YOU OPEN THE DOOR OF THE PLAYHOUSE?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU KNOCK ON THE PLAYHOUSE?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU JUST SIMPLY IGNORE THE PLAYHOUSE?

A: THE MAIN CONCERN WAS THE RESIDENCE AT THAT POINT.

Q: AND ALL FOUR OF YOU WENT TO THE FRONT DOOR OF THE RESIDENCE TOGETHER?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: HOW LONG DID YOU STAY AT THE FRONT DOOR?

A: TWO, THREE MINUTES, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

Q: RINGING THE BELL?

A: RINGING THE BELL, KNOCKING ON THE DOOR, YEAH.

Q: BUT NOT YELLING OR SHOUTING OR ASKING FOR ANYONE INSIDE?

A: NO.

Q: THEN WHERE DID YOU GO?

A: MYSELF PERSONALLY?

Q: YEAH, YOU.

A: I WALKED BACK OUT TO THE DRIVEWAY AND WALKED NORTH TO THE EAST/WEST WALKWAY THAT WALKS ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

Q: SHINING YOUR FLASHLIGHT, LOOKING IN THE BUSHES, LOOKING IN THE SHRUBBERY?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WAS IT DARK BACK THERE?

A: YEAH, IT WAS DARK.

Q: WAS THAT KIND OF UNNERVING FOR YOU?

A: NO.

Q: NOT KNOWING WHAT YOU HAD BACK THERE?

A: I THINK I TESTIFIED I DIDN'T FEEL ANY PERSONAL DANGER AT ANY TIME THAT NIGHT.

Q: SO THERE WOULD BE NO NEED AT ANY TIME FOR YOU TO EVER DRAW A GUN AT THAT LOCATION, WOULD THERE?

A: I NEVER FELT THAT NEED, NO.

Q: DID YOU TELL ANYBODY TO GO KNOCK ON ANY OTHER DOORS?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: WAS ANY INSTRUCTION GIVEN BY YOU OR DETECTIVE LANGE AS THE LEAD DETECTIVES THERE?

A: WAS THAT A QUESTION?

Q: YEAH?

A: WAS THERE ANY INSTRUCTION?

Q: RIGHT.

A: NO. I THINK WE WERE WORKING AS A GROUP.

Q: KIND OF IMPROVISING AS YOU WENT ALONG?

A: LOOKING -- LOOKING THE GROUNDS OVER, LOOKING FOR PEOPLE, YES.

Q: HOW LONG DID YOU SPEND LOOKING IN THE GROUNDS LOOKING FOR PEOPLE?

A: WELL, THIS HAPPENED UNTIL -- THIS HAPPENED THE ENTIRE TIME WE WERE THERE. WHEN I WAS OUTSIDE I WAS LOOKING AROUND.

Q: HOW LONG WERE YOU OUTSIDE LOOKING FOR PEOPLE?

A: I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY. THAT IS A -- WE WALKED AROUND THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE TO THE BACK. I WAS SHINING MY LIGHT. MAYBE -- MAYBE FIVE OR TEN MINUTES TOTAL I LOOKED THE GROUNDS OVER.

Q: WAS THAT ENOUGH TIME TO LOOK EVERYWHERE IN THOSE GROUNDS?

A: WELL, AT SOME POINT THERE EVERYBODY THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE LOCATION HAD BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR AND THAT IS WHEN I STOPPED LOOKING AROUND.

Q: BUT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR PEOPLE WHO MIGHT BE INJURED?

A: AGAIN, AT A POINT PEOPLE THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO BE THERE WERE ACCOUNTED FOR AND THAT IS WHEN I STOPPED LOOKING AROUND.

Q: WHEN WAS O.J. SIMPSON ACCOUNTED FOR? WHAT TIME?

A: AFTER 6:00 IN THE MORNING.

Q: WHAT TIME WAS HE ACCOUNTED FOR, SIR?

A: I DON'T KNOW WHAT TIME THE PHONE CALL WAS MADE.

Q: YOU DON'T HAVE ANY RECORDS REGARDING WHAT TIME THE PHONE CALL WAS MADE?

A: YEAH. THERE ARE PHONE RECORDS, YES.

Q: YOU HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THOSE?

A: NO, I HAVEN'T SEEN THEM IN FRONT OF ME.

Q: YOU DON'T THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THIS CASE?

A: I CAN LOOK AT THE PHONE RECORDS AND TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT TIME THE PHONE CALL WAS MADE.

Q: YOU DIDN'T KEEP ANY RECORDS REGARDING WHAT TIME YOU DID ANYTHING AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION, DID YOU?

A: KEEP ANY RECORD AS TO TIME?

Q: TIME ANYTHING HAPPENED AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: WELL, THAT IS NOT TRUE.

Q: YOU DID KEEP SUCH RECORDS?

A: THERE IS -- THERE IS A SEARCH WARRANT THAT INDICATES ITEMS THAT WERE FOUND THERE, YES.

Q: NO. DID YOU KEEP ANY RECORDS AS TO WHAT TIME YOU DID THINGS AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION, WHAT TIME YOU ARRIVED, WHAT TIME YOU WENT TO THE BRONCO, WHAT TIME YOU DID EVERYTHING YOU HAVE TESTIFIED TO? ARE THERE ANY SUCH RECORDS, SIR?

A: OTHER THAN PHONE RECORDS, NO.

Q: AND ISN'T THAT PART OF GOOD RECORD KEEPING, TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD IS IN ORDER FOR ALL IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THIS CASE?

A: THAT IS PART OF RECORD KEEPING, YES.

MR. SHAPIRO: IS THIS A GOOD PLACE TO STOP, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YEAH. ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE AFTERNOON SESSION. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. DO NOT ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU. DETECTIVE VANNATTER, YOU MAY STEP DOWN. YOU ARE ORDERED TO RETURN AT NINE O'CLOCK TOMORROW MORNING. WE WILL STAND IN RECESS, AS FAR AS THE JURY IS CONCERNED, UNTIL NINE O'CLOCK TOMORROW MORNING. AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE COUNSEL ON THE DISCOVERY MATTERS AFTER A SHORT RECESS. ALL RIGHT. THAT IS THE ORDER. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

(AT 3:45 P.M. AN ADJOURNMENT WAS TAKEN UNTIL, TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
)
PLAINTIFF, )
)
) VS. ) NO. BA097211
)
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, )
)
)
DEFENDANT. )

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

MONDAY, MARCH 20, 1995
VOLUME 110

PAGES 19361 THROUGH 19580, INCLUSIVE

APPEARANCES: (SEE PAGE 2)

JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR #4588
CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR #2378 OFFICIAL REPORTERS

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PEOPLE: GIL GARCETTI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
BY: MARCIA R. CLARK, WILLIAM W.
HODGMAN, CHRISTOPHER A. DARDEN,
CHERI A. LEWIS, ROCKNE P. HARMON,
GEORGE W. CLARKE, SCOTT M. GORDON
LYDIA C. BODIN, HANK M. GOLDBERG,
ALAN YOCHELSON AND DARRELL S.
MAVIS, DEPUTIES
18-000 CRIMINAL COURTS BUILDING
210 WEST TEMPLE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012

FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT L. SHAPIRO, ESQUIRE
SARA L. CAPLAN, ESQUIRE
2121 AVENUE OF THE STARS
19TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067

JOHNNIE L. COCHRAN, JR., ESQUIRE
BY: CARL E. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE
SHAWN SNIDER CHAPMAN, ESQUIRE
4929 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SUITE 1010
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010

GERALD F. UELMEN, ESQUIRE
ROBERT KARDASHIAN, ESQUIRE
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, ESQUIRE
F. LEE BAILEY, ESQUIRE
BARRY SCHECK, ESQUIRE
ROBERT D. BLASIER, ESQUIRE

I N D E X

INDEX FOR VOLUME 110 PAGES 19361 - 19580

-----------------------------------------------------

DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.

MONDAY MARCH 20, 1995 A.M. 19361 110
P.M. 19507 110

-----------------------------------------------------

LEGEND:

MS. CLARK - MC
MR. HODGMAN - H
MR. DARDEN D
MR. KAHN - K
MR. GOLDBERG - GB
MR. GORDON - G
MR. SHAPIRO - S
MR. COCHRAN - C
MR. DOUGLAS - CD
MR. BAILEY - B
MR. UELMEN - U
MR. SCHECK - BS
MR. NEUFELD - N

-----------------------------------------------------

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

PEOPLE'S
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.

VANNATTER, 110 PHILIP
(RESUMED) 19364D 19388S
(RESUMED) 19511S

-----------------------------------------------------

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

PEOPLE'S
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.

VANNATTER, 110 PHILIP
(RESUMED) 19364D 19388S
(RESUMED) 19511S

EXHIBITS

PEOPLE'S FOR IN EXHIBIT IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.

123-A - PHOTOGRAPH OF 19372 110
A CLOSE-UP OF THE MIDDLE FINGER OF THE
LEFT HAND OF THE DEFENDANT

124 - VIDEOTAPE OF 19374 110
THE DEFENDANT BEING HANDCUFFED AT 360
NORTH ROCKINGHAM

??

19565